Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/10/2008 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 22, 2006

The judge entered a Final Order and Judgment approving the settlement and closing the case on November 10, 2008. In a separate order he granted attorneys' fees of 19.25% and reimbursement of expenses.

On October 20, 2008 the judge dismissed defendant KPMG with prejudice. Lead Plaintiffs moved for final approval of settlement and awarding counsels' request for fees and expenses on October 27.

A press release dated August 20, 2008 stated that the law office of Timothy DeLange, Esq., Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announced that regarding the Maiden v. Merge, et al. Securities Litigation has been certified as a class action for purposes of a proposed settlement with Merge Technologies, Inc. ("Merge") and Richard A. Linden, Scott T. Veech and David Noshay, valued at $16 million in cash. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Rudolph T. Randa at 320 United States Courthouse, 517 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53202 at 2:00 p.m. on November 10, 2008 to determine whether the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and equitable and therefore should be approved in connection with this Settlement, and to consider the application of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses.

According to a news report dated May 26, 2008, Defendants have entered into an agreement of settlement. The agreement in principle provides for the settlement, release and dismissal of all claims asserted against Merge and the individual defendants in the litigation. In exchange, Merge Healthcare has agreed to a one time cash payment of $3,025,000 to the plaintiff and Merge's primary and one of its excess D&O insurance carriers have agreed to a one time cash payment of
$12,975,000 to the plaintiff, for a total of $16 million. The settlement is subject to, among other things, the closing of the financing described above, the drafting and execution of the final settlement documents, and the approval of the settlement
by the court.

According to an article dated April 3, 2008, a judge has rejected calls by medical software company Merge Technologies Inc. to dismiss a securities fraud suit but has agreed to toss accounting giant KPMG LLP from the case. Judge Rudolph Randa, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, also dismissed claims against one of the company's senior executives, but ruled the case could move ahead against Merge's former chief executive and chief financial officer. In his Monday ruling, the judge said the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence that Merge and its top two officers had deceived investors and artificially inflated the company's stock price. … The claims against KPMG could not survive either, he said.

On November 22, 2006, the Court entered the Decision and Order signed by U.S. District Judge Rudolph T. Randa granting the motion to consolidate several cases, and granting the motion to approve Southwest Carpenters Pension Trust as lead plaintiff and to appoint the law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead counsel and the law firm of Hale & Wagner as local or liaison counsel. On March 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The defendants responded by filing several motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on July 16, 2007. On October 26, 2007, the Judge Rudolph T. Randa signed an Order granting the motion to appoint new lead counsel.

Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed against Merge Technologies, Inc. and certain of its executive officers alleging that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements. Specifically, defendants misrepresented that the Company's merger with Cedara Software Corporation was highly successful while concealing: (i) that Merge lacked adequate internal controls; (ii) the Company's financial statements for the second and third quarters of 2005 were unreliable; and (iii) that the Company's financial projections were irresponsible considering the knowledge defendants possessed concerning the Company's actual financial situation.

The complaint further alleges that on or around March 17, 2006, Merge reported, inter alia: (i) that the accounting improprieties necessitated that management delay the completion of its financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005; (ii) that its audit committee, with the assistance of outside counsel, was investigating anonymous complaints; (iii) that it anticipates a report of material weaknesses in the Company's internal control over financial reporting; (iv) the suspension of its registration statement on Form S-3 relating to issuance of common stock upon exchange of exchangeable shares of "Merge/Cedara ExchangeCo Ltd.;" and (v) that its audit committee concluded that its previously issued financial statements for the second and third quarters 2005, should no longer be relied upon.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MRGE
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: E.D. Wisconsin
DOCKET #: 06-CV-00349
JUDGE: Hon. Rudolph T. Randa
DATE FILED: 03/22/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/02/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/16/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
    3620 East Layton Ave., Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, WI 53110
    866-264-3995 414-482-8001 · inquiry@ademilaw.com
  2. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
    One Liberty Square, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), MA 02109
    617.542.8300 ·
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  6. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.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. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Bala Cynwyd)
    273 Montgomery Ave. Suite 202, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Bala Cynwyd), PA 19004
    610.660.8000 610.660.8080 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  9. 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 ·
  10. 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
  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
  14. 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
  15. Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia)
    1818 Market Street; Suite 2500, Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia), PA 19103
    215.496.0300 215.496.6610 · classaction@srk-law.com
  16. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: E.D. Wisconsin
DOCKET #: 06-CV-00349
JUDGE: Hon. Rudolph T. Randa
DATE FILED: 03/21/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/25/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/03/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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