Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/21/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 16, 2005

On February 8, 2007, the Court entered the Decision and Order granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs were granted 20 days to file an amended complaint, but on February 21, 2007, the Court entered the Order directing the Clerk of the Court to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint in this action and to close this case and remove it from the Court's list of pending cases as a separate action, subject to its being reopened in the event within the time provided for in the 2007 Order the plaintiffs file an amended complaint consistent with the Court's decision. That day, the Court entered the Judgment closing this case.

On August 10, 2005, the Court entered the Order consolidating several similar class actions. On September 16, 2005, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to appoint Diana B. Lien, Charles F. Lin and Edward Schonberg as lead plaintiffs and appointing the law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead counsel. On November 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 24, 2006, the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the dismiss plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed against Lazard, Goldman Sachs & Co (“Goldman”) (the lead underwriter of the IPO), and certain of the Company’s officers and directors alleging the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a materially false and misleading Registration and Prospectus in connection with the Company’s IPO, which was priced at $25 per share, and continuing to conceal material facts about the true value of the Company’s stock price after the stock began to trade on the open market.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose, among other things, that: (a) the basis for the $25 price for shares sold in the IPO was to enable defendant, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, to raise sufficient funds to gain control of the Company from Michel David Weill (“David Weill”), a cousin of the Company’s founders; (ii) that prior to the IPO, market demand had indicated that the proper price for the IPO was only $22 per share; (iii) that to “create a market” and thereby manufacture an appearance that Lazard’s IPO was fairly and properly priced, Goldman arranged to sell millions of shares to hedge funds with side agreements that they could immediately “flip the shares” and that Goldman would immediately buy them back; (iv) that the Prospectus had failed to adequately and fully comply with S-K Item 505 which requires a prospectus to describe “the various factors considered in determining the offering price” when common shares without an established public trading market are being registered; and (v) that, in violation of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations, the Registration Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose that the Company’s deputy Chairman in Europe and a major rainmaker of new business for the Company, who had only supported the IPO because of a promise (which was later reneged on) that he would be appointed as head of Lazard’s European operations, was likely to leave Lazard and/or cause turmoil within the organization as he opposed the IPO and opposed the Company’s CEO’s purchase of David Weill’s shares.

The complaint further alleges that on or around May 12, 2005, only days after the IPO, and right after Goldman stopped buying back the Company’s shares, the price of the Company’s shares plunged from $25 per share to less than $21 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LAZ
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 05-CV-05630
JUDGE: Hon. Victor Marrero
DATE FILED: 06/16/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/04/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/12/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza), NY 10119
    212.279.5050 212.279.3655 · JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com
  2. Dyer & Shuman, LLP
    801 East 17th Avenue, Dyer & Shuman, LLP, CO 80218-1417
    303.861.3003 800.711.6483 · info@dyershuman.com
  3. 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
  4. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Bala Cynwyd)
    273 Montgomery Ave. Suite 202, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Bala Cynwyd), PA 19004
    610.660.8000 610.660.8080 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  5. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@lerachlaw.com
  6. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  8. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
  9. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
  10. Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP, NY 10022
    212-223-3900 212-371-5969 · inquiry@zsz.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 05-CV-05630
JUDGE: Hon. Victor Marrero
DATE FILED: 11/01/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/04/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/12/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@lerachlaw.com
  2. 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 ·
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  4. Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP, NY 10022
    212-223-3900 212-371-5969 · inquiry@zsz.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date