Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/04/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: October 10, 2001

According to the docket posted, on September 3, 2004, the Court entered the Minute Order preliminarily approving the settlement. The fairness hearing was set for November 3, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. On the day of the hearing, U.S. District Judge Charles P. Kocoras approved the settlement and dismissed the cause with prejudice. Lead counsel was awarded $33,530.44 for reimbursement of expenses and the amount of $666,666.67 in attorneys' fees from the settlement fund. On April 1, 2005, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to approve the Final Plan of Distribution.

As summarized by the Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval and Stipulation of Settlement dated August 26, 2004, on January 28, 2002, the Court named Alpart Trading Co. as Lead plaintiff and appointed its attorneys. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on January 24, 2002. On February 15, 2002, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On April 18, 2002, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I (the 10b-5 claim) and granting with respect to counts II and III (the section 14(e) and common law fraud claims). On April 25, 2002, Alpart filed its Motion and Memorandum of Law in support of its motion for class certification.On September 18, 2002, the Court granted Alpart’s motion for class certification certifying a class of purchasers of Hartmarx Corporate Stock during the period of August 14, 2001 through October 1, 2001 and either sold the stock at a lower price or owned the stock at that time. After fact discovery, the parties filed extensive memoranda in support of their respective motions for summary judgment. On November 19, 2003, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion denying the cross motions for summary judgment. Thereafter, the Court assisted the parties in a pretrial conference and recommended that the parties settle for $2 million. After further discussions among counsel and the parties, the parties ultimately agreed to the Court’s recommendation and have no executed the Stipulation of Settlement.

The original complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of
1934. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants published a series of manipulative and deceptive press releases and Tender Offer Statements, issued between August 13, 2001 and October 1, 2001, in connection with a purported tender offer to acquire all outstanding shares of common stock in Hartmarx for a cash price of $4.50 per share. The false, manipulative and deceptive statements as alleged in the complaint include 1) that Lincoln had secured all of the necessary financing required to effectuate its $4.50 per share tender offer, when in fact Lincoln did not have financing commitments; 2) that Lincoln had previously provided evidence of its financial ability to complete the $4.50 per share tender offer to the Hartmarx's board of directors, when in fact Lincoln had not done so; 3) that Lincoln had financing in place sufficient to complete the proposed $4.50 per share tender offer, when in fact it did not; and 4) that defendants failed to commence a tender offer for the purchase of Hartmarx's common stock within a reasonable period of time after Lincoln's initial announcement to the public-at-large on August 13, 2001 of its intention to acquire all outstanding shares of Hartmarx's stock at a cash price of $4.50 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Apparel/Accessories
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HMX
Company Market: New York SE
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: N.D. Illinois
DOCKET #: 01-CV-07832
JUDGE: Hon. Charles P. Kocoras
DATE FILED: 10/10/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/13/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/01/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Katz Randall Weinberg & Richmond
    333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Katz Randall Weinberg & Richmond, IL 60606
    312.807.3800 ·
  2. Kenneth B. Moll & Associates Ltd (Chicago)
    Three First National Plaza, 54th Floor, Kenneth B. Moll & Associates Ltd (Chicago), IL 60602
    888.882.3453 ·
  3. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Illinois
DOCKET #: 01-CV-07832
JUDGE: Hon. Charles P. Kocoras
DATE FILED: 01/24/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/13/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/15/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Katz Randall Weinberg & Richmond
    333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1800, Katz Randall Weinberg & Richmond, IL 60606
    312.807.3800 ·
  2. Kenneth B. Moll & Associates Ltd (Chicago)
    Three First National Plaza, 54th Floor, Kenneth B. Moll & Associates Ltd (Chicago), IL 60602
    888.882.3453 ·
  3. Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
    100 Park Avenue, Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., NY 10017
    212.907.0800 212.684.6083 ·
No Document Title Filing Date