Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/27/2013 (Date of order of distribution of settlement)

Filing Date: May 13, 2003

On July 10, 2006, the Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. On July 12, 2006, the Court entered the Opinion and Judgment. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for relief from the final judgment and for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint.

On September 29, 2003, the Court entered the Order granting the motion for co-lead plaintiffs and approving their choice of class counsel. On October 31, 2003, the Court entered the Order consolidating all actions. On January 20, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on March 5, 2004. On December 21, 2004, the Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Discovery was then commenced. On October 19, 2005, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

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 April 24, 2003, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Sara Lee securities. The Complaint alleges that
defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's operations and prospects. In particular, the
Complaint alleges that the statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose: (a) that, despite the
Company Reshaping program, the Company was still burdened with numerous
poorly performing businesses and would have to reevaluate its various
businesses. Accordingly, Sara Lee did not have "the right mix of
businesses" in that several material businesses were "not growing" or
were "in significant decline"; (b) that the Company's underperforming
businesses were causing the Company to experience declining results and,
as a result, the Company would not be growing at the rates represented
to the market; (c) due to a lack of proper internal or financial
controls, Sara Lee failed to identify or recognize those businesses or
brands among its portfolio of companies that would need to be "run
dramatically differently in the future"; and (d) based on the foregoing,
Sara Lee lacked any reasonable basis upon which to project it (i) would
experience "double-digit operating income increase" for fiscal 2003
among its "five lines of business" or (ii) have diluted EPS for fiscal
2003 in the range of $1.54 to $1.60.
On April 24, 2003, Sara Lee shocked the public when it issued a press
release announcing its financial results for the third quarter, the
period ending March 31, 2003. The Company announced that it was reducing
earnings for fiscal 2003 to $1.50 to $1.52 per share, significantly
below consensus expectations of $1.59. In response to this announcement,
the price of Sara Lee common stock dropped by 10%. During the Class
Period, Sara Lee insiders sold more than $23 million of their
personally-held Sara Lee common stock to the unsuspecting public.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Food Processing
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SLE
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: N.D. Illinois
DOCKET #: 03-CV-03202
JUDGE: Hon. George W. Lindberg
DATE FILED: 05/13/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/24/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
    3620 East Layton Ave., Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, WI 53110
    866-264-3995 414-482-8001 · inquiry@ademilaw.com
  2. Bull & Lifshitz
    18 East 41st St., Bull & Lifshitz, NY 10017
    212.213.6222 212.213.9405 ·
  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. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  7. 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 ·
  8. Miller Faucher and Cafferty LLP
    30 North LaSalle Street, Miller Faucher and Cafferty LLP, IL 60602
    312.782.4880 ·
  9. Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC

    800-470-6824 312-621-1750 ·
  10. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP (Milwaukee)
    3181 South 27th Street, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP (Milwaukee), WI 53215
    866.264.3995 414.482.8001 · info@murrayfrank.com
  11. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  12. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  13. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Illinois
DOCKET #: 03-CV-03202
JUDGE: Hon. George W. Lindberg
DATE FILED: 01/20/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/24/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Geller Rudman, PLLC.
    197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Geller Rudman, PLLC., FL 33432
    561.750.3000 888.262.3131 · info@geller-rudman.com
  2. Kenneth A. Elan (Chicago )
    30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Kenneth A. Elan (Chicago ), IL 60602
    312782.4880 · mmiller@millerfauchner.com
  3. Mager White & Goldstein, LLP
    2825 University Drive, Suite 350, Mager White & Goldstein, LLP, FL 33065
    954.341.0844 954.341.0855 · info@mwglawfirm.com
  4. 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
  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. Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C.
    200 N LaSalle St Ste 2100, Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C., IL 60601
    312.346.3100 ·
  7. 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