Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 02/05/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: October 01, 2002

According to a press release dated February 1, 2007, Merrill Lynch & Co. won approval Wednesday of a $40.3-million settlement of three lawsuits over claims it provided misleading analyst research about Internet companies. U.S. District Judge John Keenan in New York approved the deal reached after investors appealed the 2003 dismissal of two of the cases. Keenan also awarded $9 million to lawyers who represented almost 400,000 investors who sued. Investors won 6.25% of the $645 million in damages they sought, which Keenan said was "at the higher end" of the percentage of recoveries in class - action securities suits. The lawsuits were brought on behalf of shareholders in three Merrill mutual funds: the Internet Strategies Fund, the Global Technology Fund and the Focus Twenty Fund. The firm issued falsely optimistic research reports, and fund prospectuses failed to disclose investments in companies with which Merrill sought banking business, the investors claimed. Merrill was named in dozens of investor lawsuits in 2002 after the firm issued what the investors said were misleading research reports about Internet companies. U.S. District Judge Milton Pollack, who died in 2004, dismissed many of the actions, saying the individuals who sued were "high-risk speculators" who wanted to "twist the securities laws into a scheme of cost-free speculators' insurance." An appeals court upheld most of the dismissals. In February 2006, Merrill paid $164 million to settle 12 cases pending in the trial court and 11 on appeal.

On December 23, 2002, the Court entered the Case Management Order #1 consolidating several related actions under In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Global Technology Fund Securities Litigation, 02-CV-7854(MP). A Master file was established under In Re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc Research Reports Securities Litigation: 02 MDL 1484. On March 14, 2003, an Amended Complaint was filed. On July 7, 2003, the Court entered the Decision and Order dismissing the Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Complaint with prejudice. On September 8, 2003, the Court entered the Decision and Order #15 denying the plaintiff’s motion for an order altering the Court’s dismissal of the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 17, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an Notice of Appeal. On October 24, 2006, the Court entered the Mandate of the U.S. Court of Appeals withdrawing the appeal because a settlement was reached in the Multidistrict Litigation action, 02-MD-1484. ccording to the Notice of Pendency dated October 11, 2006, the settlement fund is in the amount of $39 million in cash.

This action arises as a result of the issuance by the defendants of shares in the Fund, and concerns material misstatements and omissions by defendants in the Prospectus, relating to defendants' conflicts of interest, which include but are not limited to the following: (1) defendants failed to disclose and omitted material information that Merrill Lynch had had investment banking relationships with, including having brought public, certain of the companies whose securities were part of the Fund's portfolio. Defendants disclosed neither this general fact nor the identities of the particular companies with which it had investment banking relationships. (2) defendants failed to disclose and omitted material information concerning that Merrill Lynch was continuing to seek investment banking relationships with many of the companies whose securities were part of the Fund's portfolio; and (3) defendants failed to disclose and omitted material information concerning that a material part of the total compensation paid to Merrill Lynch research analysts was based upon obtaining investment banking business for Merrill Lynch and not upon the accuracy of their research about a given company. Hence, Merrill Lynch and its affiliated companies including the Fund recommended investments in and/or invested in companies in order to enhance Merrill Lynch's opportunity to obtain investment banking business from those companies (without regard to whether they were good investments for the investors including plaintiffs and the Class).

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Misc. Financial Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MAGTX
Company Market: Open-end Fund
Market Status: Open-end Fund

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. New York
DOCKET #: 02-CV-7854
JUDGE: Hon. Milton Pollack
DATE FILED: 10/01/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/02/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/01/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 02-CV-7854
JUDGE: Hon. Milton Pollack
DATE FILED: 03/14/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/02/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/01/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 · info@abbeygardy.com
  2. Beatie & Osborne LLP
    599 Lexington Avenue, 42nd Floor, Beatie & Osborne LLP, NY 10022
    212.888.9000 212.888.9664 ·
  3. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  4. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4699 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  5. Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran
    1050 30th Street, NW, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, DC 20007
    202.337.8000 202.337.8090 · contact@ftllaw.com
  6. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (former New York, NY)
    805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (former New York, NY), NY 10022
    212.687.1980 212.687.7714 · info@kaplanfox.com
  7. Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC

    800-470-6824 312-621-1750 ·
  8. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
  9. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    75 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
  10. 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
  11. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date