Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/29/2010 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: April 11, 2006

The original class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the debt securities (defined below) of Fairfax Financial Holdings, Ltd., against defendants Fairfax and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. sections 240.10b-5. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that statements in the Prospectus omitted material information including, inter alia, (1) failure to detail the Company's increasing liquidity problems; (2) failure to detail second quarter 2004 transactions between Odyssey and Fairfax and to explain that the arrangements were structured to avoid a liquidity squeeze at Fairfax that would have occurred during the quarter; (3) failure to detail Fairfax's exposure stemming from the need to collateralize run-off business; (4) failure to detail the Company's reserves and whether they were adequate to address the Company's growing run-off operations; (5) failure to detail the Company's growing exposure to finite reinsurance agreements within the overall organization; and (6) failure to detail Fairfax's highly leveraged balance sheet and further omissions concerning the Company's equity position. The claims brought with respect to the Prospectus seek to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") 15 U.S.C. sections 77k and 77l.

The debt securities at issue in this Complaint are:

7.75% notes maturing 04/26/12 ("7.75% Notes");

8.25% notes maturing 10/01/15;

6.875% notes maturing 4/15/08;

8.3% notes maturing 4/15/26; and

7.375% notes maturing 4/15/18.

The Complaint also alleges claims on behalf of a sub-class of Class members who also suffered damages upon purchasing the 7.75% Notes pursuant to or traceable to the Company's August 24, 2004 prospectus ("Prospectus") filed by Fairfax with the SEC on August 25, 2004 to effectuate a $95 million aggregate principal amount debt flotation (the "Sub-Class").

On August 28, 2006 the judge ordered all related cases to be consolidated, appointed lead plaintiffs and approved selection of lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint on February 8, 2007. Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on June 28, 2007 and July 25, 2007.

On November 2, 2009, an order was granted by the judge withdrawing CI Canadian Small/Mid Cap Fund; CI Canadian Asset Allocation Fund; CI Canadian Investment Fund; CI Canadian Investment Corporate Class; Synergy Canadian Style Management Corporate Class; Synergy Tactical Asset Allocation Fund; Skylon High Yield Trust; High Yield & Mortgage Plus Fund; DDJ High Yield Fund; and DDJ U.S. High Yield Trust (collectively, the "CI Funds" or "Lead Plaintiff"), as Lead Plaintiffs.

On March 29, 2010, Judge George B. Daniels granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judgment was entered the next day.

On April 27, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment, which was denied on June 8, 2010.

On July 9, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the March 29th and June 8th orders dismissing the case.

On July 29, 2010, an Order relating to Non-party Plumbers, Pipefitters & MES Local Union No. 392 Pension Fund's motion to intervene was denied.

According to the Mandate from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals entered on June 14, 2011, the appeal was dismissed.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Prop. & Casualty)
Headquarters: Canada

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol:
Company Market: Undetermined
Market Status: Unknown

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-2820
JUDGE: Hon. George B. Daniels
DATE FILED: 04/11/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/24/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/21/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (New Orleans)
    650 Poydras St. Suite 2150, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (New Orleans), LA 70130
    504.455.1400 · lewis.kahn@kglg.com
  3. Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
    Esquire at 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., PA 19046
    215.886.1900 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  7. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  8. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  9. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  10. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  11. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
  12. 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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 06-CV-2820
JUDGE: Hon. George B. Daniels
DATE FILED: 02/08/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/21/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/22/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Grant & Eisenhofer (New York)
    45 Rockefeller Center, 630 Fifth Avenue, Grant & Eisenhofer (New York), NY 10111
    646.722.8500 646.722.8500 · lawyers@gelaw.com
  2. Grant & Eisenhofer (Wilmington)
    1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Grant & Eisenhofer (Wilmington), DE 19801
    302.622.7000 302.622.7100 · lawyers@gelaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date