Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/14/2006 (Other)

Filing Date: July 26, 2002

According to a press release dated February 28, 2006, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of a securities fraud class action suit because the putative class failed to plead its case with particularity as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Financial Acquisition Partners and John May sued Amresco Inc. and its various officers and directors for securities fraud, alleging that Amresco and the officers and directors made material misstatements in conjunction with the sale of its securities pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. In affirming the district court's dismissal, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the district court correctly excluded Financial Acquisition's affidavit of an expert witness and correctly decided that Financial Acquisition failed to plead its case with particularity pursuant to the PSLRA. The Fifth Circuit explained that Financial Acquisition failed to meet the heightened pleading standard of the PSLRA with a group pleading for all the officers and directors. The Fifth Circuit further explained that, in order to meet the standard, Financial Acquisition should have made separate allegations for each defendant.

As summarized in the latest docket posted, on January 6, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, and on February 24, 2003, the defendants filed various motions to dismiss. On July 28, 2003, the Court issued the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade granting the plaintiffs' motion to Amend/Correct the complaint, and the defendants' motions to dismiss were denied as moot. That same day, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Further, on July 31 2004, the Court entered the Order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel. Financial Acquisition Partners, LP and John D. May served as lead plaintiffs and Federman & Sherwood served as lead counsel. On September 8, 2003, the defendants filed several motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 30, 2004, the Court entered the Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss, and the civil case was terminated. On October 22, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an appeal.

The original Complaint alleges that Deloitte & Touche and certain of AMRESCO's officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by filing false financial reports with the SEC during the Class Period. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants knew or should have known that the reports did not properly report impairment to AMRESCO's assets in the Form 10-K, 10-Q and proxy statement during the Class Period.

NOTE: On July 2, 2001, AMRESCO voluntarily filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 and is not named a defendant in this action.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AMMBQ
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: N.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 02-CV-01586
JUDGE: Hon. Jorge A. Solis
DATE FILED: 07/26/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/29/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/02/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 02-CV-01586
JUDGE: Hon. Jorge A. Solis
DATE FILED: 07/28/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/11/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/02/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date