Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 04/22/2008 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 04, 2003

According to the Opinion and Order signed by U.S. District Court Judge John F. Keenan, dated April 16, 2008, for the foregoing reasons, the Court grants certification to the settlement classes and approves the Settlement and Plan of Allocation as fair and reasonable. Plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed with prejudice. Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of 22.5% of the Settlement Fund and reimbursement of costs and expenses in the amount of $$38,139.88.

By the Notice of Pendency dated August 7, 2007, Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. The appeal was fully briefed and awaiting calendaring of oral argument
at the time Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the Action. On June 19, 2007, the Parties presented to the District Court a proposed Stipulation of Settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants. The action has been preliminarily certified as a class action and that a settlement for $4,900,000 in cash has been proposed. A hearing will be held before the Honorable John F. Keenan, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, NewYork, NewYork 10007 at 10:00 a.m. on January 9, 2008 (the “Settlement Fairness Hearing”), to determine whether the proposed settlement of this class action should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application of Plaintiffs’ Counsel for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses.

On March 10, 2004, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the action. The plaintiffs amended their appeal on March 16, 2004. The appeal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In a press release dated February 19, 2004, Judge Milton Pollack of United States District Court in New York threw out the suit. The investors "failed to assert any causal relationship between the 'fraud' alleged and the decline in the trading price of Tyco's securities,'' Judge Pollack said in a ruling. The ruling ends the litigation in the trial court. Lawyers for the investors can appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York.

Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on September 25, 2003.

The original Complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Incorporated ("Merrill Lynch") and Phua Young engaged in a scheme to defraud Tyco investors in violation of SEC Rule 10b-5. According to the complaint, filed in Manhattan federal court (03cv4080)(Sweet, J.), Young issued numerous misleading research reports on Tyco while supposedly working as an "independent" Merrill Lynch managing director. Young voiced opinions in his research reports on Tyco that were flatly contradicted in his own private emails, where he expressed his true outlook on Tyco. For example, Young's emails, which turned up in the NASD's investigation of him, show that he didn't believe his own publicly-issued research reports concluding that Tyco's subsidiary, CIT Group, could be sold for as high as $7-8 billion. Young privately expressed his true view that CIT would fetch much less, if a buyer could be found at all. In other emails, Young made it plain that Tyco "effectively bought and paid for" him as the complaint alleges (paragraph 3), when he candidly described himself in a private email as "LOYAL TYCO EMPLOYEE." Young routinely sent his draft Tyco research reports to Tyco's Investor Relations Department for review, comment and editing. And with respect to one of his reports, Young asked Tyco: "did I not sound pumped up enough?" Young is also accused of passing insider tips to his institutional clients in advance of at least one Tyco deal involving Siemens and accepting unlawful gifts from Tyco.


Sector: Financial
Industry: Misc. Financial Services
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: TYC
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-4080
JUDGE: Hon. Michael B. Mukasey
DATE FILED: 06/04/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/28/2003
  1. Berger & Montague PC
  2. Bernard M. Gross
  3. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
  4. Vianale & Vianale LLP (former Boca Raton)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 03-CV-4080
JUDGE: Hon. Michael B. Mukasey
DATE FILED: 09/25/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/06/2002
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 ·
  2. Bernard M. Gross
    1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600, Bernard M. Gross, PA 19102
    215.561.3600 215.561.3000 ·
  3. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available