On March 2, 2007, the Settlement Agreement Hearing was held before U.S. District before Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. According to the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal entered on March 5, 2007, the settlement was approved and the action was dismissed with prejudice. The next day, the Court entered an Amended Final Judgment.
According to a press release dated January 19, 2007, a hearing will be held before the Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas, United States District Court, 299 East Broward Boulevard, Courtroom 205B, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 at 10:30 a.m., on March 2, 2007 (the "Settlement Fairness Hearing"), to determine whether the proposed settlement of $5,000,000.00 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, to determine whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate, to consider the application of Lead Plaintiff's Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and Lead Plaintiff's application for an expense award, and to determine whether to enter the proposed Bar Order.
As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 24, 2006, on July 2, 2004, the Marrari, Gould, Williams and Zia actions were consolidated, although, as noted above, the Zia action was subsequently remanded to state court. Plaintiff Thomas Greene was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the consolidated action and the law firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman LLP (now known as Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP) was appointed Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel. On September 1, 2004, Lead Plaintiff filed his consolidated amended class action complaint (the Complaint). The Complaint makes allegations on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers of the Company’s common stock pursuant to or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering in April 2002, for purposes of the Securities Act claims, and on behalf of the Company’s stockholders who purchased stock during the period from April 18, 2002 through June 16, 2003, for purposes of the Exchange Act claims. The Complaint alleges that certain of the Company’s public disclosures during the class period were materially false and misleading in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks compensatory damages as well as costs and attorney fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint, which, on September 27, 2005, was granted in part as to those portions of Plaintiffs’ Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims concerning statements or omissions prior to October 29, 2002, and denied as to the remaining claims. On May 15, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.
The original complaint charges Medical Staffing and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Medical Staffing is a medical staffing company and provides per-diem nurse staffing services (staffing assignments of less than 13 weeks in duration). On April 17, 2002, Medical Staffing completed an IPO of 7,812,500 shares of stock at $19 per share pursuant to a Registration Statement/Prospectus. The offering provided that Medical Staffing would receive $148 million in proceeds. The complaint alleges that, in fact, the Registration Statement/Prospectus was materially false and misleading in that the statements set forth therein misstated or omitted to state material facts which, when the Company was going public, were then causing material problems for the Company, including a dramatic adverse trend in the Company’s “de novo” program and its “per diem” Medical Staffing segment, as well as negative seasonality trends.
Note: This case was filed on behalf of shareholders who acquired Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc. common stock traceable to Medical Staffing's Registration Statement/Prospectus used in connection with its April 17, 2002 Initial Public Offering (IPO).