Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/23/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: May 09, 2005

According to an article dated January 16, 2008, a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a two-year-old securities fraud case against The Coca-Cola Co. The 2005 class action complaint contended that then-Coke CEO Douglas Daft and other top executives made false and misleading statements about Coke's business and financial standing that artificially inflated the price of Coke stock. U.S. District Judge Richard W. Story dismissed the suit in 2006, saying that most of the alleged misrepresentations were mere "puffery" -- vague, sunny statements on which reasonable investors don't rely -- while other allegations weren't stated specifically enough in the complaint. The unpublished, unsigned opinion issued Jan. 10 by the panel of 11th Circuit Judges Stanley F. Birch Jr. and Ed Carnes and Senior 11th Circuit Judge Emmett Ripley Cox generally adopted the "well-reasoned" opinion written by Story. The panel paused only to clarify that one of Coke's arguments noted in the district court opinion -- about the plaintiffs' claim that Coke had violated accounting principles -- was too "fact-based" to support a motion to dismiss.

On March 23, 2007, the Court entered the Judgment dismissing the case with prejudice and the civil case was terminated. On April 16, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. The Appeal is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2006, in May and July 2005, two putative class action lawsuits (Selbst v. The Coca-Cola Company and Douglas N. Daft and Amalgamated Bank, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company, Douglas N. Daft, E. Neville Isdell, Steven J. Heyer and Gary P. Fayard) alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and certain current and former executive officers. These cases were subsequently consolidated, and an amended and consolidated complaint was filed in September 2005. On November 21, 2005, the Company and the individual parties filed a motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed their response to that motion on January 27, 2006. On September 29, 2006, the Court entered its order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and granted the plaintiffs 20 days from its date of entry within which to seek leave to file a second amended complaint to attempt to correct deficiencies noted therein. On October 23, 2006, plaintiffs advised the court that they would not seek leave to file a second amended complaint thereby concluding this matter.

The original complaint charges Coke and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Coke manufactures, distributes and markets non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups, including fountain syrups, throughout the world. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Coke's business and prospects. The true facts, which were know to defendants but concealed from the investing public, were as follows: (i) Coke's business strategy was flawed and its business model was not working; (ii) Coke's relationships with its key bottlers were impaired and harming Coke's economic performance; and (iii) as a result of the above, Coke's earnings going forward would be diminished. The complaint further alleges that on or around September 15, 2004, Coke revealed that its second half 2004 financial results would be below forecasted levels. Coke's stock declined on this news.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Beverages (Non-Alcoholic)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: KO
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 #: 05-CV-01226
JUDGE: Hon. J. Owen Forrester
DATE FILED: 05/09/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/30/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/15/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Chitwood & Harley LLP (Atlanta)
    7945 East Paces Ferry Road, 1400 Resurgens Plaza, Chitwood & Harley LLP (Atlanta), GA 30326
    404.266.1650 · info@chitwoodlaw.com
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Georgia
DOCKET #: 05-CV-01226
JUDGE: Hon. J. Owen Forrester
DATE FILED: 09/16/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/30/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/15/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  4. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP (Milwaukee)
    3181 South 27th Street, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP (Milwaukee), WI 53215
    866.264.3995 414.482.8001 · info@murrayfrank.com
No Document Title Filing Date