Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/19/2004 (Other)

Filing Date: January 31, 2002

According to a press release dated July 14, 2004, the Company and its officers moved to dismiss the complaint on February 25, 2003. On August 26, 2003, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and denied Plaintiffs leave to amend further. The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a notice of appeal. In May of 2004, the Plaintiffs dismissed their appeal, thereby concluding the case. A separate shareholder derivative action was also brought in federal court, but was stayed pending resolution of the shareholder class action described above. The Plaintiff in the derivative case did not make a demand on the Company or its Board of Directors prior to filing suit. It remained stayed pending the Plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal of the shareholder class action. Given the Plaintiff's dismissal of the appeal in the shareholder class action, the Company has moved to dismiss the derivative action.

Additionally, shortly after the class action was filed, two purported shareholder derivative suits, including almost verbatim the same allegations as the class action, were filed against the Company and certain of its officers. Flory v. Chan et al., H-02-3123, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, is a shareholder derivative action which was stayed on Nov. 12, 2002 by the District Court pending the outcome of the Hamilton case. Dynacq moved to dismiss this case on Sept. 10, 2003 following the dismissal of the Hamilton case. In Brill v. Chan et al., (2002-07135 in the 295th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas), the second shareholder derivative case, a Stipulation of Settlement was executed by both parties and filed with the Court on Sept. 11, 2003. The Settlement provides that (1) the suit will be dismissed and (2) defendants will pay a portion of plaintiffs' legal fees and expenses, subject to the approval of the Court at a Final Settlement Hearing scheduled for Nov. 10, 2003.

The original complaint charges Dynacq and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Dynacq is engaged in the ownership and management of an acute care hospital, the operation of two outpatient surgical facilities, the operation of a medical office complex, the management of physician practices (all located in the Vista medical center campus in Pasadena, Texas) and the business of providing home infusion healthcare services to patients in their homes. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants represented that Dynacq's favorable financial results were due to its commitment to quality and cost-effective care. Throughout the Class Period, defendants repeatedly stated that Dynacq's financials were strong and that it was consistently achieving "record results." Defendants actually knew that the quality of Dynacq's balance sheet was eroding, that it was violating federal law in the maintenance of its facilities and that it improperly cared for patients. On Jan. 16, 2002, TheStreet.com ran an article on Dynacq entitled, "Dynacq's Doubtful Accounts Send Distress Signals." Essentially, the article exposed many of the Company's problems which, in the days that followed, caused the Company's share price to crumble. These disclosures shocked the market, causing Dynacq's stock to decline to less than $15 per share before closing at $15.20 per share on Jan. 17, 2002, on volume of more than 2.6 million shares, and later plummeting to less than $12 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Healthcare Facilities
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DYII
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: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 02-CV-00377
JUDGE: Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal
DATE FILED: 01/31/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/29/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/16/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  2. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
    P.O. Box 25438, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR), AR 72221-5438
    501.312.8500 501.312.8505 ·
  3. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  5. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  6. Schwartz, Junell, Campbell & Oathout, LLP (Houston)
    909 Fannin - Suite 2000, Schwartz, Junell, Campbell & Oathout, LLP (Houston), TX 77010
    713.752.0017 713.752.0327 ·
  7. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 02-CV-00377
JUDGE: Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal
DATE FILED: 09/16/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/30/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/16/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP (Little Rock)
    P.O. Box 25438, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP (Little Rock), AR 72221-5438
    501.312.8500 ·
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  4. Schwartz, Junell, Campbell & Oathout, LLP (Houston)
    909 Fannin - Suite 2000, Schwartz, Junell, Campbell & Oathout, LLP (Houston), TX 77010
    713.752.0017 713.752.0327 ·
No Document Title Filing Date