Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/10/2010 (Date of order of distribution of settlement)

Filing Date: September 20, 2002

On May 24, 2006, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals from the April 2006 Judgment granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. On May 24, 2007, exactly one year after the lower court's dismissal of the case, the appeals court over-turned the decision and remanded the case back to the District Court for settlement proceedings. The order approving the settlement is still pending.

According to a press release dated May 31, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment in favor of a company that was sued by its shareholders for securities fraud, ruling that the shareholders failed to show that the company made material misrepresentations with scienter. Shareholders of Metris Cos. Inc. stock sued Metris for allegedly making material misrepresentations about its financial health, causing its stock values to be overly inflated and causing the shareholders' loss. The shareholders sued under § § 10(b) and 20(a), along with Rule 10b-5, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The shareholders claimed that Metris and its officers and directors materially misstated its financial health in a series of press releases and SEC filings. Metris and its officers and directors moved for summary judgment. …The district court ruled that Metris' positive statements as to its "strong profitability" and other general predictions of growth were insufficient to state a securities fraud claim. The court found that Metris' statements were mere puffery upon which a reasonable investor would not rely, granting Metris' motion for summary judgment.

The original Complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5). The action alleges that defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition. Specifically, defendants misled the investing community concerning the existence of a Report of Examination (the "ROE") released by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the "OCC"), the primary federal regulator of Direct Merchants. Moreover, the Complaint charges that defendants misled the investing community regarding the adverse material effect the ROE would have on Metris' financial condition.

The Complaint alleges that the OCC released the ROE to defendants on
November 5, 2002, but that defendants failed to reveal the existence of
the ROE to the public until April 17, 2002, and therafter misrepresented
the effect it would have on Metris. As outlined in the Complaint, the
findings of the ROE were ultimately addressed in a consent agreement
between Direct Merchants and the OCC, and obligated Direct Merchants to
restructure significant parts of its operations including its credit
policies, credit risk assessment, debt forbearance, allowance for loan
and lease losses and internal controls. The Complaint further alleges
that as a result of defendants' actions, plaintiff and the Class were
damaged.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Consumer Financial Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MXT
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: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 02-CV-03677
JUDGE: Hon. James M. Rosenbaum
DATE FILED: 09/20/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/05/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL)
    One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL), FL 33431
    561.750.3000 561.750.3364 ·
  2. Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P.
    Suite 301, 660 Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., DC 20003-4335
    202.544.9840 202.544.9850 ·
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 02-CV-03677
JUDGE: Hon. James M. Rosenbaum
DATE FILED: 10/13/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/05/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Reinhardt & Anderson
    E 1000 First Bank Bldg - 332 Minnesota Street, Reinhardt & Anderson, MN 55101
    651.227.9990 ·
  2. 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
  3. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
    The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), NY 10126
    212.682.3025 212.682.3010 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date