Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 05/19/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 31, 2006

The original Complaint alleges that Jarden and its CEO violated the federal securities laws in connection with a scheme to convert hundreds of millions of dollars of convertible stock to common stock, and earn defendant, the company’s CEO, tens of millions of dollars in restricted stock compensation. Specifically, it is asserted that the company’s CEO misrepresented the business situation and potential of the Holmes Group, Inc. when that company was acquired by Jarden at the beginning of the Class Period. This caused the stock to rise substantially, triggering the personal benefits to the CEO. On January 11, 2006 Jarden announced that Holmes' profit margins and product mix were not what the market had been led to expect. On this news, Jarden's stock fell substantially.

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, in January and February 2006, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain Company officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the period from June 29, 2005 (the date the Company announced the signing of the agreement to acquire Holmes) through January 11, 2006. The complaints, which are substantially similar to one another, allege, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company relating to the expected benefits of the THG Acquisition. Joint lead plaintiffs were appointed on June 9, 2006. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on August 25, 2006 naming the Company, the Company’s Consumer Solutions segment and certain officers of the Company as defendants (collectively “Defendants”) and containing substantially the same allegations as in the initial complaints. On October 20, 2006, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On July 3, 2007, Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2007, the court granted Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, but reaffirmed its May 31, 2007 denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants answered the amended consolidated complaint on July 10, 2007. On September 10, 2007, Plaintiffs moved for class certification. On March 6, 2008, the Court issued an opinion certifying a class comprised of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the period from June 29, 2005 through January 11, 2006.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, pursuant to the settlement reached on November 20, 2008, which is subject to court approval, the Company’s insurance carriers will pay $8 million into a settlement fund and the Defendants will obtain full releases from all claims in connection with the litigation. The plaintiffs’ counsel will seek a portion of the settlement fund to cover attorneys’ fees and expenses. On January 28, 2009, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a final settlement hearing for May 18, 2009.

On May 18, 2009, the Court approved the settlement and the plan of allocation and awarded attorney's fees and expenses. The action was dismissed with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Fabricated Plastic & Rubber
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: JAH
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 #: 06-CV-00722
JUDGE: Hon. Charles L. Brieant
DATE FILED: 01/31/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/29/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/11/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Paskowitz & Associates
    60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, Paskowitz & Associates, NY 10165
    212.685.0969 212.685.2306 · classattorney@aol.com
  2. Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York)
    350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000 , Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York), NY 10118
    · classattorney@pipeline.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 06-CV-00722
JUDGE: Hon. Charles L. Brieant
DATE FILED: 08/25/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/29/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/11/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. 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
No Document Title Filing Date