Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 07/14/2003 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 20, 2001

According to the docket, on July 8, 2003, the Court entered the Memorandum regarding the Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation. Specifically, the court granted approval of the proposed settlement and plan of allocation, certified the class, and awarded attorney fees from the common fund in the amount of $455,158.433, or 25% of the fund, and reimbursement of expenditures totaling $103,572.44. On July 14, 2003, the Court further entered the Final Judgment and Order, and the case was terminated.

In a press release dated January 6, 2003, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a hearing will be held on February 3, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Gary A. Feess, in Courtroom 740 of the Edward Roybal Center & Federal Building, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Litigation for $ 1,820,633.34 should be approved by the Court as fair, just, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether, thereafter, the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of October 24, 2002; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, just, reasonable and adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with the Litigation should be approved.

The original complaint was filed charging certain of Stan Lee Media's officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 arising from defendants' issuance of materially false and misleading statements regarding the nature of Stan Lee Media's revenues, earnings, and financial condition. Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions, the complaint alleges, caused the price of the securities of Stan Lee Media to be inflated during the class period. As the complaint alleges, defendants' alleged misconduct came to light when defendants revealed, in December 2000 and January 2001: (i) that Stan Lee Media could not obtain necessary financing (which financing, according to previous statements made by the defendants, had already been secured); (ii) that trading in Stan Lee Media securities had been halted by Nasdaq; (iii) that the SEC had initiated an inquiry into the trading of Stan Lee Media shares by certain unnamed investors; and (iv) that possible misuse of company funds by certain Stan Lee executives had been discovered.

NOTE: As a result of Stan Lee Media filing for bankruptcy on February 16, 2001, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, San Fernando Valley Division, Stan Lee Media could not be named as a defendant in the litigation.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SLEEQ
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 01-CV-01621
JUDGE: Hon. Gary A. Feess
DATE FILED: 02/20/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/23/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/18/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
    830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP, NY 10022
    212.317.2300 ·
  2. Lionel Z. Glancy
    1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 308, Lionel Z. Glancy, CA 90067
    310.201.9150 ·
  3. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 01-CV-01621
JUDGE: Hon. Gary A. Feess
DATE FILED: 11/16/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/23/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/18/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
  3. Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP, NY 10016
    212-682-1818 · info@rabinlaw.com
  4. Robert C. Susser
    6 East 43rd Street, Robert C. Susser, NY 10017-4609
    212.808.0298 · classaction@mail.com
No Document Title Filing Date