Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 02/19/2009 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: April 08, 2003

The original Complaint alleges 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 material misrepresentations to the market between June 16, 2002 and April 7, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Accredo common stock. The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (a) that the Company was failing to timely record an impairment in the value of certain receivables that it had acquired in a recent acquisition. As a result, the Company's reported financial results were artificially inflated throughout the Class Period; (b) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements published during the Class Period were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and were therefore materially false and misleading; (c) that the Company would not have been able to meet its stated earnings guidance had it properly reserved for its accounts receivables; and (d) based on (a)-(c), defendants' earnings guidance and positive statements concerning the Company was lacking in a reasonable and therefore materially false and misleading. On April 8, 2002, prior to the opening of the market, Accredo shocked the market by announcing that it was reducing its previously issued earning guidance and that it was examining the adequacy of reserves for accounts receivables that it acquired in a recent acquisition. In response to this announcement, the price of Accredo Health common stock declined precipitously falling from $25.40 per share to as low as $13.76 per share, on extremely heavy volume. During the Class Period, Accredo
insiders sold more than $12 million worth of their personally-held Accredo stock while in possession of the true facts about the Company.

As summarized by a law firm’s web site, additional cases were filed on behalf of investors. On June 9, 2003, motions were made for appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel. On June 19, 2003, the Court consolidated the various actions and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. On July 2, 2003, the Court vacated the June 19 order consolidating the cases and appointing lead plaintiff and counsel. The cases remained consolidated. In an order dated June 23, 2004, the Court reappointed lead plaintiff and counsel. On September 15, 2004, a consolidated complaint was filed, and defendants later filed a motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2005, the judge denied the motion to dismiss. On May 16, 2005, Defendants filed an answer to the consolidated complaint. On July 22, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The court has yet to rule on this matter.

On March 7, 2006, a Report and Recommendations was filed recommending that the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be granted. On April 19, 2006, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Bernice B. Donald adopting the Report and Recommendations.

Discovery is still in progress as of August 7, 2008. Plaintiffs filed a motion for Partial Summary Judgment on May 9, 2008. Ruling on the motion is still pending. Accredo filed its own motion for Summary Judgment on May 16, 2008.

On October 8, 2008, parties filed a motion for settlement, which the judge preliminarily approved on November 20. The settlement consists of a $33 million cash payment to the class in exchange for full dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. Final approval was granted on February 19, 2009.


Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Healthcare Facilities
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: ACDO
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: W.D. Tennessee
DOCKET #: 03-CV-02216
JUDGE: Hon. Jon P. McCalla
DATE FILED: 04/08/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/07/2003
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
  2. Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
  3. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
  4. Chitwood & Harley LLP
  5. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
  6. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
  7. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  8. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
  9. Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC
  10. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: W.D. Tennessee
DOCKET #: 03-CV-02216
JUDGE: Hon. Jon P. McCalla
DATE FILED: 09/15/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/07/2003
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Former New York)
  2. Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton)
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date