Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/06/2009 (Date of order of distribution of settlement)

Filing Date: December 12, 2003

The original complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint is seeking to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

This complaint alleges that Levi Strauss disseminated false and misleading statements to investing public with respect to its financial results during the Class Period. More specifically, during the Class Period, the Company issued statements that failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net income in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company; and (3) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income and financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K For The Fiscal Year Ended November 28, 2004, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the selection of lead counsel. The consolidated action is styled In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-05605 RMW (class action). The action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s bonds who made purchases pursuant or traceable to the Company’s prospectuses dated March 8, 2001 or April 28, 2003, or who purchased the Company’s bonds in the open market from January 10, 2001 to October 9, 2003. The action makes claims under the federal securities laws, including Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relating to the Company’s SEC filings and other public statements. On May 26, 2004, the court related this action to a federal wrongful termination action, such that each action is pending before the same judge. On July 15, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this action. The matter came before the court on October 15, 2004, and, after oral argument had concluded, the court took the matter under submission. The court has not yet issued a ruling.

On September 11, 2007, the Court entered the Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. According to the Order, the court (1) denies defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' § 11 claims as to those plaintiffs who purchased Levi registered bonds in the after market traceable to the April 2001 or June 2003 registration statements, (2) denies defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' § 15 claims, and (3) grants defendants' motion to dismiss as to plaintiffs' other claims with twenty days' leave to
amend.

On January 14, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws.

According to a press release dated August 12, 2008, the law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announced a settlement regarding In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation Class Action. The above mentioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes of a proposed settlement valued at $5 million in cash. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte in the United States Courthouse, Courtroom 6, 4th Floor, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95113 at 9:00 a.m. on October 17, 2008 to determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate and to consider the application of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses.

On October 14, 2009, an order of Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund (after deduction for the payments for accrued and anticipated expenses and taxes as authorized by the Stipulation or the Court) to the Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Court-approved Plan of Allocation was directed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Apparel/Accessories
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol:
Company Market: Privately Traded
Market Status: Privately Held

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-05605
JUDGE: Hon. William Alsup
DATE FILED: 12/12/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/10/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/09/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego)
    12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY)
    1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY), NY 10019
    212.554.1400 212.554.1444 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  3. Green & Jigarjian LLP
    235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, Green & Jigarjian LLP, CA 94104
    415.477.6700 415.477.6710 ·
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-05605
JUDGE: Hon. William Alsup
DATE FILED: 01/14/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/06/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/16/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego)
    12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
    830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP, NY 10022
    212.317.2300 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date