Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 01/26/2005 (Other)

Filing Date: August 27, 2001

On January 26, 2005, the Court entered the Mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The District Court’s decision was affirmed.

On September 30, 2002, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge James C. Turk granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 30, 2002, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On April 22, 2003, the defendant Continental Insurance filed a motion for summary judgment. On November 28, 2003, the Court entered the Final Order granting the motion for summary judgment, denying the plaintiffs’ motions to certify class. The case was closed. On December 24, 2003, the plaintiffs again filed a notice of appeal.

The complaint alleges that the sale of bogus "Senior Capital Notes" by The Charterhouse Group, Ltd., was aided and abetted by the use of false or misleading statements indicating that payment of the notes was assured by virtue of insurance policies issued by CNA, and that CNA knew or should have known of the misleading statements and did nothing to stop them. It is further alleged that RAI aided and abetted fraud practiced by two Florida corporations, First Capital Services, Inc., and U.S. Capital Funding, Inc., because it continued to place tax exempt assets belonging to class members in those corporations when it knew, or should have known, that the investments were shams.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Prop. & Casualty)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol:
Company Market: Undetermined
Market Status: Unknown

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: W.D. Virginia
DOCKET #: 01-CV-00653
JUDGE: Hon. James C. Turk
DATE FILED: 08/27/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/11/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/10/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Clark Bloss & McIver PLLC
    125 South Elm Street, Suite 600; P.O. Box 1349, Clark Bloss & McIver PLLC, NC 27402-1349
    336.275.7275 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: W.D. Virginia
DOCKET #: 01-CV-00653
JUDGE: Hon. James C. Turk
DATE FILED: 10/10/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/11/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/10/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Clark Bloss & McIver PLLC
    125 South Elm Street, Suite 600; P.O. Box 1349, Clark Bloss & McIver PLLC, NC 27402-1349
    336.275.7275 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date