Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/11/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 27, 2004

On July 9, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to a press release dated July 9, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio June 11 dismissed a class securities fraud action claiming Ferro Corp. and officials created a "culture of fear" in which employees were forced to engage in accounting manipulations designed to meet market expectations (In re Ferro Corp. Securities Litigation, N.D. Ohio, Lead Case No. 1:04 CV 1440, 6/11/07). Judge John R. Adams concluded that the plaintiffs failed to meet the fraud and scienter pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiff's request for leave to amend was denied.

On May 4, 2006, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. On July 7, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The motion is currently pending before the Court.

On January 5, 2005, the Court entered the Order consolidating two similar actions. On February 2, 2005, Judge John M. Manos granted the motion to appoint lead plaintiff and to approve choice of lead counsel. On June 20, 2005, a Consolidated Complaint was filed and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. Before any ruling on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 20, 2005, and again amended the complaint on February 7, 2006. On March 13, 2006, the Court entered the Order and Notice of Party Dismissal as to one of the individual defendants.

The original complaint charges Ferro and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ferro is a major international producer of performance materials sold to a broad range of manufacturers serving diverse markets throughout the world.

According to the complaint, on July 22, 2004, defendants revealed that the Company was slashing earnings expectations for the second quarter of fiscal 2004 by more than 70% based upon an internal review, purportedly conducted in conjunction with Ferro's closing its books for the quarter, which unearthed a multi-million dollar overstatement of earnings resulting from certain unspecified accounting manipulations. Upon this news, the price of Ferro shares fell by more than 16% to close at $20.68 per share.

The complaint alleges that defendants knew but concealed from the investing public, that (i) Ferro's polymer additives business was not profitable and was incurring greater losses than had been reported; (ii) that Ferro's efforts to raise the prices of its polymer additives to products to offset increasing 'raw materials' costs had been ineffective, further eroding the Company's revenues and profits; (iii) that the Company's purportedly improving cost controls, especially regarding the Company's polymer additives business, was, in fact, the product of accounting manipulations that deferred and/or materially understated the true operating costs of the business from Ferro's public investors the increasing losses the Company was actually incurring from its polymer additive business; and (iv) that the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were wholly ineffective contrary to defendants Ortino's and Gannon's representations to investors.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Chemical Manufacturing
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FOE
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. Ohio
DOCKET #: 04-CV-1440
JUDGE: Hon. Lesley Wells
DATE FILED: 07/27/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/28/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/22/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brian Felgoise
  2. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
  3. Landskroner - Grieco, Ltd.
  4. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  5. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Philadelphia)
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
  7. Paskowitz & Associates
  8. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  9. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  10. Smith & Smith LLP
  11. Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Ohio
DOCKET #: 04-CV-1440
JUDGE: Hon. Lesley Wells
DATE FILED: 05/04/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/28/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/22/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Landskroner - Grieco - Madden, Ltd.
    1360 West 9th St., Suite 200, Landskroner - Grieco - Madden, Ltd., OH 44113
    866.522.9500 216.522.9007 ·
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date