Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/07/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 07, 2003

According to the docket, on December 7, 2004, the Court entered the Final Judgment of Dismissal by U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III adopting the terms of the stipulation of settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice. The next day, the Court entered the Order awarding attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $1,620, 000 and reimbursement of costs and expenses they incurred in the amount of $189,530.30. The parties agreed to settle the action for $6,750,000.

In a press release dated June 30, 2004, a tentative settlement was reached in the putative class action. The settlement, if approved by the court after notice to the class members and a hearing, is in an amount that is covered by Alloy's applicable directors and officers insurance policies. Also on June 28, 2004, Alloy reached a tentative settlement in the related derivative action entitled Yeung Chan v. Diamond, et al., 03 Civ. 8494 (S.D.N.Y.) (WHP) that was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the then directors of Alloy in October, 2003. That tentative settlement does not require the Company to make any payment except to the extent legal fees are awarded to plaintiff's counsel by the court.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between August 1, 2002 and January 23, 2003.
Alloy is a teen-focused media company and direct marketer that targets
Generation Y consumers, i.e. the approximately 60 million people in the
United States between the ages of 10 and 24. The complaint alleges that
the Company claimed that its merchandising and advertising segments
complemented one another in a way that gave the Company an edge over
competitor teen retailers and media businesses and which would enable it
to succeed despite difficult market conditions in the second half of
2002. Unbeknownst to investors, the Company faced fierce competition for
the youth market and the weak economy forced the Company to cut its
prices and increase operating expenses, e.g. by offering free shipping
and deep discounts, thereby eroding Alloy's gross profit margin.
On January 23, 2003, the Company shocked the market by announcing that
EBTA for its fiscal fourth quarter ending January 31, 2003 would be $11
million to $12 million instead of the previously projected $15 million
to $16 million and that fiscal 2002 EBTA would be in the range of $30 to
$31 million instead of the previously forecast $34 million to $38
million. On this news, the Company's share priced plummeted by 49%, or
$4.57, from the previous day's closing price of $9.10.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Catalog & Mail Order)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ALOY
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. New York
DOCKET #: 03-CV-1597
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Pauley III
DATE FILED: 03/07/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/23/2003
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. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  3. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  4. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  5. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  6. 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 #: 03-CV-1597
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Pauley III
DATE FILED: 08/05/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/23/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date