Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 09/06/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 22, 2005

On December 17, 2008, an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice was entered with the court.

On March 14, 2008, the court ordered a partial motion to dismiss on the two of the four motions by the plaintiff.

On September 4, 2007, the settlement hearing was held and U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn L. Huff approved the partial settlement with SeraCare and the Individual Defendants. The Court issued the Orders granting the Plan of Allocation and the motion for award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of 25% of the settlement and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $162,364.13. The case is continuing against the remaining defendants.

On June 11, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, KPMG and investment bankers. On July 16, 2007, remaining defendant KPMG filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, and on September 4, 2007, remaining defendants William Blair and Co, Thomas Weisel and CIBC World Markets filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

On April 30, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Class Action Settlement. According to the Motion, a proposed settlement in the amount of $3 million would resolve claims with SeraCare Life Sciences, Inc. and the Individual Defendants. The settlement would not resolve claims as to defendants CIBC World Markets Corporation, Thomas Weisel Partners LLC, William Blair & Co., LLC, and KPMG LLP. By the Order entered on May 30, 2007, the Final Fairness Hearing is set for September 4, 2007, at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 13 before Judge Marilyn L. Huff.

According to an article dated April 2, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California March 19 dismissed class securities fraud claims against KPMG LLP over its allegedly flawed audit of the financial statements of SeraCare Life Sciences Inc., now bankrupt biotechnology concern (In re SeraCare Life Sciences Inc. Securities Litigation, S.D. Cal., No. 05-CV-2335-H (CAB), 3/19/07). In other rulings, the court dismissed with limited exceptions the investors' 1933 Securities Act Section 11 claims against SeraCare's underwriters for a May 2005 secondary offering. … The court gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.

On April 10, 2006, the Court entered the Order by Judge Marilyn L. Huff consolidating the cases and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On July 17, 2006, a Consolidated Complaint was filed.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed against SeraCare and certain of its officers and directors charging the defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. SeraCare engages in the manufacture and provision of biological products and services for diagnostic, therapeutic, drug discovery and research organizations worldwide. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period representations regarding SeraCare's financial statements, business, and prospects were materially false and misleading when made. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company, in violation of its own revenue recognition accounting policies and practices, improperly recognized revenue which served to materially inflate the Company's financial results; (2) that the accounting for and valuation of the Company's inventory was faulty; (3) that the defendants failed to prevent certain board members from exerting undue influence on the Company's financial reporting process and on the audit process; (4) that throughout the Class Period, the timeliness, quality and completeness of the Company's implementation and testing of its internal controls over financial reporting was lacking, such that the Company lacked adequate internal control; and (5) that the Company's financial statements were presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

The complaint further alleges that on or around December 14, 2005, SeraCare filed a current report on Form 8-K wherein it stated that the Company was unable, without unreasonable effort and expense, to file its annual report on Form 10-K for its fiscal year ended September 30, 2005. Then, on December 20, 2005, before the market opened, the Company announced that "the chairman of the Company's audit committee has received a letter from Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. (MHM), the Company's independent auditors, in which MHM raised concerns with respect to the Company's financial statements, accounting documentation and the ability of MHM to rely on representations of the Company's management."

In reaction to this announcement, the price of SeraCare stock fell dramatically, from $19.30 per share on December 19, 2005 to $10.04 per share on December 20, 2005, a one-day drop of 47.98 percent on unusually heavy trading volume.

NOTE: SeraCare is no longer named a defendant because it filed for bankruptcy on March 22, 2006.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SRLS
Company Market: NASDAQ
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. California
DOCKET #: 05-CV-02335
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
DATE FILED: 12/22/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/03/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/19/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 · info@abbeygardy.com
  2. Ann D. White Law Offices PC
    101 Greenwood Avenue, Fifth Floor, Ann D. White Law Offices PC, PA 19046
    1.866.389.0274 215-481-0271 · awhite@awhitelaw.com
  3. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (CA)
    425 California Street, Suite 2025, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (CA), CA 94104
    415.433.3200 415.433.6382 ·
  4. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  5. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4699 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  6. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  7. 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
  8. 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 ·
  9. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  10. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  11. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  12. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  13. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 05-CV-02335
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
DATE FILED: 06/11/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/14/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/23/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4699 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 · info@csgrr.com/
  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