Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/27/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 07, 2004

According to the press release dated November 5, 2006, an institutional investor failed to plead with the required specificity that an Atlanta-based health information company and its officers fraudulently misstated the company's revenues by engaging in "channel stuffing" and other improprieties, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Oct. 12 (Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 11th Cir., No. 05-14765, 10/12/06). Among other conclusions, the court said the Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications signed by the defendant officers attesting to the validity of the allegedly flawed financial statements are not indicia of the officers' scienter, or culpable intent. The accounting reform law was not intended to change the requirements for pleading scienter under the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the appeals court stated. Channel stuffing, which is not necessarily fraudulent, is a practice in which a company floods distribution channels by using incentives to induce customers to buy its products in large quantities, creating a short-term bump in revenue, the court explained. It added, however, that while legitimate reasons may exist for attempting to achieve earlier sales via channel stuffing, seeking to create a misleading impression of the entity's financial health is not among them. During the course of the litigation, NDC restated its financial results, indicating that its "prior financial reporting may not have been accurate and may not have reflected the performance of the company," the court noted. … Affirming, the appeals court first concluded that by appealing the dismissal, rather than seeking leave to amend, DeKalb waived its right further to amend its complaint.

On August 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal as to the July 27, 2005 Order granting the motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The appeal is currently pending in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a press release dated July 28, 2005, NDCHealth Corporation announced that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the company's Motion to Dismiss the securities class-action complaint naming NDCHealth Corporation and certain of its officers and advisors as defendants. NDCHealth's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on October 13, 2004, and that motion was granted yesterday by order of the Honorable William S. Duffey Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Georgia.

The original complaint charges defendants with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, defendants issued quarter after quarter of strong financial results. Defendants failed to disclose that these stellar financial results were only made possible through improper revenue recognition practices in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ('GAAP'). On April 1, 2004, before the market opened, defendants shocked the market by announcing that NDC would delay it will delay the release of its fiscal third-quarter financial results as it 'reviews some aspects of how it records revenue.' The Company said the review relates to the timing of sales recognition in its value-added reseller channel in NDC's physician business unit. In response to the news concerning NDC's previously undisclosed accounting issues, the price of NDC stock dropped nearly 20% to close at $22.70 on unusually large trading volumes of nearly 4.8 million shares traded - - far greater than NDC's average daily trading volume of about 298,000 shares.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NDC
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. Georgia
DOCKET #: 04-CV-0970
JUDGE: Hon. Marvin H. Shoob
DATE FILED: 04/07/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/01/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/31/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Chitwood & Harley LLP
    1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Chitwood & Harley LLP, GA 30309
    888.873.3999 404.873.4476 · info@chitwoodlaw.com
  3. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  4. Geller Rudman, PLLC.
    197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Geller Rudman, PLLC., FL 33432
    561.750.3000 888.262.3131 · info@geller-rudman.com
  5. 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
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton)
    The Plaza, Suite 900, 5355 Town Center Road, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33486
    561.361.5000 ·
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  8. The Brualdi Law Firm (New York)
    29 Broadway - Suite 1515, The Brualdi Law Firm (New York), NY 10006
    877.495.1187 212.952.0608 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Georgia
DOCKET #: 04-CV-0970
JUDGE: Hon. Marvin H. Shoob
DATE FILED: 09/01/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/21/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/09/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Chitwood & Harley LLP
    1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Chitwood & Harley LLP, GA 30309
    888.873.3999 404.873.4476 · info@chitwoodlaw.com
  2. Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta)
    2300 Promenade II; 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta), GA 30309
    888.873.3999 404.876.4476 · info@chitwoodlaw.com
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton)
    5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33486
    561.361.5000 561.367.8400 · info@milbergweiss.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date