Polaroid Corporation is best known for manufacturing instant film and cameras.

The original Complaint charges that Defendants KPMG LLP and Polaroid's Chairman and CEO, Polaroid's CFO, and Polaroid's Controller violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t and Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR 240.10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period. Specifically the Complaint alleges that Polaroid's year end 2000 and first quarter 2001 financial statements were false and misleading due to: (i) the improper inclusion of deferred tax credits that had little or no future value; (ii) the improper reversal of reserves in the fourth quarter of 2000; and (iii) the failure of the Company to properly classify its debt as short-term. In addition, the unqualified audit and review opinions issued by KPMG during the Class Period were false and misleading due to the foregoing GAAP violations and KPMG's failure to issue a "going concern" qualification.

On September 21, 2004, the Court entered the Opinion and Order #90670 signed by U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein granting the motion to consolidate the actions and granting the Sczesny Trusts' motion for appointment as lead Plaintiff and for the approval of the selection of Goodkind, Labaton, Rudoff & Sucharow LLP as lead Counsel. On November 19, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint.

On November 14, 2006, the Court entered Opinion and Order # 93926 granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. According to the Order, Plaintiffs' claims with respect to the alleged deferred tax asset and restructuring reserve reversal frauds are dismissed as time-barred because Plaintiffs were on inquiry notice more than one year before commencing this action. Further, Plaintiffs' claims with respect to the alleged going concern qualification and refinancing misrepresentation frauds are dismissed for failure to plead scienter with the requisite particularity. On November 20, 2006, the Court entered the Clerk’s Judgment, and the case is now closed.