Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 09/19/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 09, 2003

On September 19, 2006, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment signed by U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald approving the settlement as fair pursuant to FRCP 54(b), certifying the class, and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The case is now closed.

According to a press release dated June 29, 2006, a hearing will be held before the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald in the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, at 9:15 a.m. on September 18, 2006 to determine whether the proposed Settlement, in the amount of $3.8 million, as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, is fair, reasonable and adequate, and also to consider the proposed Plan of Allocation for the Settlement proceeds and the application of Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses out of the Settlement Fund.

As summarized by the Notice of Pendency of Class Action dated June 22, 2006, in April 2003, several class action were consolidated into a single caseby Orders of the Court dated August 27, 2003 and January 5, 2004. The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (“First Consolidated Complaint”) was filed and served on December 5, 2003, alleging, among other things, that Defendants issued materially false and misleadingstatements during the period August 1, 2002 to March 24, 2003 in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”). On February 3, 2004, Defendants moved to dismiss the First Consolidated Complaint. The Court issued an Order, dated September 24, 2004, granting Defendants’ motion in part and denying it in part. The Court dismissed, on jurisdictional grounds, claims by foreign or non-resident citizens who purchased their shares outside the United States. The Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) was filed and served on October 28, 2004, alleging, among other things, that Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements during the period August 1, 2002 to March 24, 2003 in violation of sections 10(b) and 20 of the 1934 Act. On December 22, 2004, Defendants filed their motion for partial dismissal of the Complaint or for a more definite statement. The motion has been withdrawn without prejudice pending completion of the Settlement.

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 August 1, 2002 and March 24, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of ICI securities. Throughout the Class Period, as alleged in the Complaint, defendants issued numerous press releases in which they stated that they had resolved the Company's distribution and software problems that the Company had experienced at its Quest division's Fragrance & Food businesses. Defendants further stated that the Company was on track to report strong financial results, that the Company had cleared its backlog of customer orders and that the Company
had not lost any customers as a result of its production problems. The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (a) that ICI's software, distribution and production problems at its Quest division were not
"temporary" problems or "unique" to the Naarden, The Netherlands location, but impacted company-wide operations and profitability; (b) that ICI's software, distribution and production problems at its Quest
division had not been "essentially" or "largely" "resolved" or "rectified"; and (c) that contrary to ICI's representations that it had cleared its backlog of orders and not lost any customers as a result of the software, distribution and production problems at Quest, ICI's customers were, in fact, obtaining new sources of supply and discontinuing their relationships with ICI.

The complaint further alleges that on or around March 25, 2003, before the open of trading, ICI shocked investors when it issued a profit warning with respect to its fiscal 2003 first quarter. Defendants announced that its first quarter profit would drop approximately 24%, as a result of, among other things, "business lost following the customer service problems in 2002." Following this announcement, shares of ICI fell from a close of $9.60 per share on March 24, 2003 to a close of $5.60 per share on March 25, 2003, or a single-day decline of more than 36%, on nearly twenty times normal trading volume.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Chemical Manufacturing
Headquarters: United Kingdom

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ICI
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 03-CV-02457
JUDGE: Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald
DATE FILED: 04/09/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/24/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  2. 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
  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. 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
  6. 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 ·
  7. 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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 03-CV-02457
JUDGE: Hon. Naomi Reice Buchwald
DATE FILED: 10/28/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/24/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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 ·
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  4. 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 ·
No Document Title Filing Date