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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Healthcare Facilities
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

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 START: 06/16/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/07/2003
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. Barrett, Johnston & Parsley
    217 Second Avenue, N, Barrett, Johnston & Parsley, TN 37201
    615.244.2202 ·
  3. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  4. Chitwood & Harley LLP
    1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Chitwood & Harley LLP, GA 30309
    888.873.3999 404.873.4476 · info@chitwoodlaw.com
  5. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  6. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  7. 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
  8. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  9. Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC

    800-470-6824 312-621-1750 ·
  10. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
    1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego), PA 19103
    215.496.0300 215.496.6611 ·
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 START: 06/16/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/07/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Former New York)
    1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Former New York), NY 10019
    212.554.1400 212.554.1444 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton)
    197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33432
    ·
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  4. 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
No Document Title Filing Date