Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/04/2008 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: September 06, 2005

The original Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and common law fiduciary duties, by purchasing certain Corporate Units (NYSE: TXU PrC) and PRIDES (NYSE: TXU PrD) (collectively, "the Convertible Securities") without disclosing its plan to dramatically increase the dividend payout on TXU common stock upon completion of the Tender Offer. The complaint alleges that TXU in September 2004 made a self-tender offer to purchase the Convertible Securities at a price linked to the value of its common stock, without disclosing its plan to dramatically increase the common stock's dividend payout immediately following completion of the Tender Offer. Nine short days after the Tender Offer expired, TXU adopted a 350% increase in its common stock dividend, resulting in a 20% increase in the common stock price. To keep the common stock price low during the Tender Offer pricing period, however, TXU injected a false air of uncertainty into the market concerning its plan to increase the dividend, which enabled it to purchase the Convertible Securities from Plaintiffs and other Class members at a substantial and artificial discount.

On November 10, 2005, the Court issued the Order granting the motion to appoint plaintiffs Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Income Fund Incorporated, Flaherty & Crumrine Preferred Income Opportunity Fund Incorporated, and Flaherty & Crumrine/Claymore Preferred Securities Income Fund Incorporated as lead plaintiffs and further appointing Shockman Law Offices and Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C., as counsel for lead plaintiffs and Dodge & Gillman, P.C., as local counsel for lead plaintiffs. On November 28, 2005, a First Amended Class Action Complaint was filed. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint on December 16, 2005. On August 30, 2006, U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish signed the Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Judgment was entered that day. On September 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Based on the September 18, 2007, opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the district court’s judgment was vacated and the action was remanded back the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas for reconsideration. On November 26, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on December 14, 2007. On January 29, 2008, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Count Four of the Second Amended Complaint.

On April 4, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge A. Joe Fish signed the Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' second amended class action complaint was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Judgment was further entered that day. On May 2, 2008, the plaintiffs again filed a Notice of Appeal from the final judgment. On May 5, 2009, the Court entered the certified copy of the Opinion, Judgment and Mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which affirmed the decision of the District Court.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Utilities
Industry: Electric Utilities
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TXU
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. Texas
DOCKET #: 05-CV-01784
JUDGE: Hon. A. Joe Fish
DATE FILED: 09/06/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/15/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/13/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix)
    4041 N. Cental Avenue, Suite 1100, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix), AZ 85012-3311
    602.274.1100 ·
  2. Dodge & Gillman, P.C.
    One Lincoln Centre, 5400 LBJ Freeway, Suite 910, Dodge & Gillman, P.C., TX 75240
    ·
  3. Shockman Law Offices PC (former)
    8170 N. 86th Place, Suite 102, Shockman Law Offices PC (former), AZ 85258
    480-596-1986 480-596-2689 · RShock@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 05-CV-01784
JUDGE: Hon. A. Joe Fish
DATE FILED: 11/26/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/15/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/13/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix)
    2901 North Central Avenue - Suite 1000, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix), AZ 85012
    602.274.1100 602.274.1199 ·
  2. Shockman Law Offices PC
    3001 Camelback Road, Suite 120, Shockman Law Offices PC, AZ 85016
    602.955.2465 602.955.2465 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date