Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 01/15/2008 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: 二月 03, 2006

On January 4, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the class action settlement. On January 15, 2008, the Court entered the Orders signed by U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas approving the plan of allocation and awarding attorneys’ fees and expenses. Specifically, the Court awarded Plaintiffs’ Counsel attorneys’ fees of 33% of the Settlement Fund and reimbursement of expenses in an aggregate amount of $71,862.83, plus interest. Lastly, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. The settlement was approved and the case has been dismissed with prejudice.

On May 10, 2006, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas granting the motion to consolidate cases. On June 26 and later on July 10, 2006, the plaintiffs filed Consolidated Class Action Complaints. On August 9, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On January 17, 2007, the Court entered the Order granting in part the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. On February 20, 2007, the plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint and thus certain portions of the complaint were dismissed with prejudice. The parties entered into mediation. On November 6, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a joint motion for settlement preliminary approval. The proposed settlement was in the amount of $2 million, in cash. That day, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement.

The original complaint charges Applica and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Applica engages in the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of small household appliances. The Company markets and distributes kitchen products, home products, pest control products, pet care products, and personal care products.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements highlighting the Company’s ability to transform its business and become more profitable. As alleged in the Complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (a) that the Company was experiencing decreasing demand for its products. In particular, demand for two key products, Tide™ Buzz™ Ultrasonic Stain Remover and Home Café™ single cup coffee maker, were not meeting internal expectations; (b) that Applica was materially overstating its net worth by failing to timely write down the value of its inventory which had become obsolete and unsaleable; (c) that Applica was experiencing higher product warranty returns, which it had not appropriately reserved for; (d) that Applica’s financial statements issued during the Class Period were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) and therefore were materially false and misleading; and (e) as a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable basis for the Company’s revenue and earnings guidance.

The Complaint further alleges that, on April 20, 2005, Defendants revealed that the Company would not come near achieving the guidance they had previously sponsored and/or endorsed, that the Company’s business was suffering from numerous adverse factors and that the Company was marking down inventory and experiencing increased warranty expenses. Then, on April 28, 2005, Defendants further detailed the impact of these adverse factors on Applica’s business. These belated disclosures had an immediate, adverse impact on the price of Applica shares.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: APN
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. Florida
DOCKET #: 06-CV-60149
JUDGE: Hon. William P. Dimitrouleas
DATE FILED: 02/03/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/04/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/28/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  2. 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
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca Raton)
    197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33432
    561.750.3000 56.750.3364 · info@lerachlaw.com
  4. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  5. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 06-CV-60149
JUDGE: Hon. William P. Dimitrouleas
DATE FILED: 07/10/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/04/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/28/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, 42 Street)
    60 East 42 Street, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, 42 Street), NY 10021
    212.687.6655 ·
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca Raton)
    197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33432
    561.750.3000 56.750.3364 · info@lerachlaw.com
  3. 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 ·
No Document Title Filing Date