Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/02/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 30, 2003

According to the latest docket posted, on January 13, 2005, U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong ordered the Lead Plaintiff's claims against the Akzo Entities dismissed with prejudice.

On January 26, 2004, the Court entered the Order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to consolidated and further granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to be appointed lead plaintiffs and to approve plaintiffs’ choice of counsel. On March 19, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. Before any ruling, the plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 14, 2004, the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and on October 11, 2004, Defendant Akzo Nobel filed a motion to dismiss. On January 4, 2005, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to dismiss the individual defendants.

The original complaint charges Solutia and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Solutia manufactures and markets a wide variety of high performance chemical-based materials. Solutia maintained a 50% interest in Flexsys, Nev. (a supplier of process chemicals to the rubber industry) for which Solutia used the equity method of accounting. The complaint alleges that by engaging in the alleged illegal acts, as described below, defendants were able to recognize equity interest and control over Flexsys. Solutia's equity earnings from Flexsys were as follows: $11 million in 2002, $12 million in 2001 and $12 million in 2000.

The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused Solutia's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements via their control over Flexsys by: (a) agreeing to charge prices at certain levels and otherwise to fix, increase, maintain or stabilize prices of rubber chemicals sold in the U.S. (b) selling rubber chemicals at the agreed upon prices; and (c) inflating their profits via the above acts.

Note: Solutia is not named as a defendant is this action because it has filed for bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on December 17, 2003. As a result, this action is currently stayed against Solutia pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SOI
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. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-03554
JUDGE: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
DATE FILED: 07/30/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/16/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/10/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  3. Johnson & Perkinson
    1690 Williston Road, Johnson & Perkinson, VT 05403
    802.862.0030 802.862.0060 · JPLAW@adelphia.net
  4. 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
  5. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
    335 Central Avenue, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence), NY 11559
    516.374.0707 516.295.3473 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
    100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-03554
JUDGE: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
DATE FILED: 08/11/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/16/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/10/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · 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
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date