Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/10/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 05, 2005

On July 7, 2006, the Court entered the Order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss then Amended Class Action Complaint. On July 10, 2006, Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

On October 13, 2005, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to appoint Barry Yellen as Lead Plaintiff. Further, Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP and Maddox Hargett & Caruso, P.C. were appointed Co-Lead Counsel, and LaMarca & Landry, P.C. was appointed to serve as Liaison Counsel. On November 30, 2005, the plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, and, on January 6, 2006, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint.

The original complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them and which caused the defendants to issue materially false and misleading financial projections, among other things, which caused the price of Maytag stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the defendants attempted to inflate the price of Maytag stock in an effort to secure a higher price for the company in connection with its buyout negotiations with Ripplewood Holdings LLC.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Appliance & Tool
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MYG
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. Iowa
DOCKET #: 05-CV-00388
JUDGE: Hon. Robert W. Pratt
DATE FILED: 07/05/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/07/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/21/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP (New York)
    485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP (New York), NY 10018
    212.239.4340 212.239.4310 · lawyer@lawssb.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Iowa
DOCKET #: 05-CV-00388
JUDGE: Hon. Robert W. Pratt
DATE FILED: 11/30/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/07/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/21/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Maddox, Koeller, Hargett and Caruso
    26 Broadway, Suite 400, Maddox, Koeller, Hargett and Caruso, NY 10004
    212.837.7908 212.837.7998. · info@investorprotection.com
  2. Sarraf Gentile LLP (former NY)
    485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005, Sarraf Gentile LLP (former NY), NY 10018
    212.868.3610 212.918.7967 ·
  3. Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP (New York)
    485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP (New York), NY 10018
    212.239.4340 212.239.4310 · lawyer@lawssb.com
No Document Title Filing Date