Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/31/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 13, 2003

According to a press release dated March 31, 2006, Administaff, Inc., the nation's leading Professional Employer Organization (PEO), announced that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ("Court") granted Administaff's motion to dismiss each of the securities fraud claims previously filed against Administaff and certain officers and directors. The Court's ruling, issued March 30, 2006, validates the company's previously disclosed position that the claims were without merit. In June 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint, which was granted by the Court on March 30, 2006. The dismissal is with prejudice, however, is subject to appeal.

As previously reported by the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, on March 31, 2004, the court entered an order consolidating all of the cases and appointing Carpenters Pension Trust for South California as “lead plaintiff” and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as “lead counsel.” The lead plaintiff alleges that its losses are $352,000, although the alleged damages of the purported class have not been specified. In May 2004, the lead plaintiff filed its Consolidated Complaint, which amended and consolidated the seven previously filed cases. In the consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiff has essentially abandoned the allegations of fraud contained in the initial seven lawsuits. Through the consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiff now generally asserts, among other things, that Administaff and certain of its officers and directors fraudulently made false and misleading statements regarding the cost of its health plan during 2001 and 2002. In June 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

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 April 3, 2001 and July 31, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Administaff securities. 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 Administaff had inadequate and deficient pricing and billing systems and was incorrectly calibrating pricing for clients that experienced declines in average payroll cost per worksite employee; (b) that Administaff was incorrectly matching the price and cost for health insurance on new and renewing client contracts; and (c) that, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Practices and in order to retain its coveted place on the Fortune 500 listing, Administaff was improperly recognizing revenue by failing to net Administaff's worksite employee payroll costs against revenues. On August 1, 2002, before the open of trading, Administaff shocked the investing public when it released its financial and operational results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002, reporting "a net loss and diluted net loss per share of $3.2 million and $0.11" as compared to Thomson Financial/First Call estimates of $0.04 earnings per share. Market reaction was swift and negative, with Administaff stock falling from a close of $7.50 on July 31, 2002 to a close of $4.20 on August 1, 2002, or a single-day decline of 44% in heavy trading.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ASF
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. Texas
DOCKET #: 03-CV-2082
JUDGE: Hon. Melinda Harmon
DATE FILED: 06/13/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/03/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/31/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  2. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. 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 ·
  4. 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
  5. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  6. The Emerson Firm
    2228 Cottondale Avenue, Suite 100, The Emerson Firm, AR 72202
    800.663.9817 501.907.2556 · epllp@emersonpoynter.com
  7. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 03-CV-2082
JUDGE: Hon. Melinda Harmon
DATE FILED: 05/14/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/28/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/31/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Los Angeles)
    355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90071
    213.617.9007 213.617.9185 · info@lerachlaw.com
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  3. 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 ·
  4. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
  5. Susman, Godfrey LLP (Dallas)
    4100 Bank of America, 901 Main Street, Susman, Godfrey LLP (Dallas), TX 75202
    214.754.1908 · mevans@susangodfrey.com
  6. The Emerson Firm
    2228 Cottondale Avenue, Suite 100, The Emerson Firm, AR 72202
    800.663.9817 501.907.2556 · epllp@emersonpoynter.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date