Founded in Anaheim, California, Vans, Inc. manufactures skateboarding shoes and related apparel.

The original Complaint charges Vans and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that beginning in 1998, Defendants orchestrated a scheme wherein on a routine basis Vans “posted” product to three separate Distribution Centers, including Unique Services, Pronto Services and Special Dispatcher, in order to inflate EPS on a quarterly basis. This scheme took place each quarter, causing Vans’ quarterly financial statements to be false. Moreover, Defendants actively concealed that literally millions of dollars worth of Vans’ valuable inventory was worth a fraction of the value claimed.

The Complaint further allege that as a result of the Defendants’ false statements, Vans’ stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $24.59 on May 31, 2001, whereby the Company and its top officers and directors caused to be sold $60 million worth of Vans shares. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Vans common stock during the Class Period. The Plaintiff is represented by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, who has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

On May 9, 2005, the Court entered the Order Dismissing the Civil Actions by Virtue of Settlement by U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz. By the Order, the action is dismissed without prejudice to the right, upon good cause shown within 45 days, to reopen this action if settlement is not consummated. On June 10, 2005, a Stipulation of Settlement was filed. On August 24, 2005, the Court entered the Revised Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice. By the Notice of Settlement, the proposed settlement created a fund in the amount of $4,600,000 in cash. The settlement hearing was scheduled for October 31, 2005.

According to the docket posted, on November 2, 2005, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, signed by U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz. The settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement was approved and the case is dismissed with prejudice. The Court further entered that day the Orders approving the Plan of Allocation and awarding lead Counsel attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses.