Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/21/2008 (Other)

Filing Date: June 01, 2006

On September 22, 2006, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to appoint lead counsel and lead plaintiff. On October 2, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Class Action Amended Complaint. On October 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Class Action Amended Complaint. On May 24, 2007, the Court entered the Order staying the Purchase Action pursuant to the Preliminary Order approving settlement dated May 24, 2007 in related action, Lan v. Ludrof, No. 1:06-cv-114. On March 21, 2008, the Court in the Lan Action entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order approving the settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice.

As summarized in the March 21, 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Order, on May 15, 2006, Plaintiff Lin Lan commenced her action by filing a Class Action Complaint on behalf of herself and all similarly situated minority shareholders of EFL who had suffered or would suffer injury as a result of the Defendants’ actions in connection with the Tender Offer. Lan’s sole cause of action was one for breach of fiduciary duty against following Defendants. On June 1, 2006, a separate class action lawsuit arising out of the Tender Offer was commenced in this Court by Naomi Purchase, naming essentially the same Defendants as were named in the Lan action. However, unlike Lan, Purchase included in her complaint a claim under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (commonly known as the “Williams Act”). On April 27, 2007, the parties in the Lan action entered into settlement. The Stipulation of Settlement provides for the payment of total Settlement Consideration equal to $5,234,277.17 (or $2.45 per share for 2,136,439.66 total shares held by the members of the Class on May 25, 2006) in settlement of all claims that were or could have been asserted in connection with the Tender Officer, including but not limited to the Williams Act and fiduciary duty claims asserted in the Purchase Action. There was no objection to Defendants’ demand that any potential settlement be accompanied by a global release of all claims, including the Purchase Williams Act claim.

The original complaint alleges an effort by Erie Indemnity Company ("Erie Indemnity"), Erie Insurance Exchange ("Erie Exchange") and EFL's board of directors to "freeze out" EFL's minority shareholders at an unreasonably low price. As described in the Complaint, defendants artificially depressed the price of EFL shares to as low as $26.50 per share even though they had traded at above $32 per share for nearly two years. Defendants then announced that a "third-party" purchaser would pay the minority shareholders $32 for their shares. The purchaser was not a "third party" at all, but rather a shell entity owned and controlled by Erie Indemnity and Erie Exchange.

The Complaint alleges that EFL and its directors, along with Erie Indemnity and Erie Exchange, violated Section 14(e) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading tender offer documents in which they misrepresented or failed to disclose the true facts regarding the proposed tender offer.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Life)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ERIF.OB
Company Market: OTC-BB
Market Status: OTC

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: W.D. Pennsylvania
DOCKET #: 06-CV-00130
JUDGE: Hon. Sean J. McLaughlin
DATE FILED: 06/01/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/21/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/24/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Johnson Law Firm APC (San Diego)
    402 W. Broadway, 27th Floor, Johnson Law Firm APC (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.230.0063 619.230.0063 ·
  2. Quinn, Buseck, Leemhuis, Toohey & Kroto, Inc.
    2222 West Grandview Boulevard, Quinn, Buseck, Leemhuis, Toohey & Kroto, Inc., PA 16506-4508
    814.833.2222 814.833.2222 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: W.D. Pennsylvania
DOCKET #: 06-CV-00130
JUDGE: Hon. Sean J. McLaughlin
DATE FILED: 10/02/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/21/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/24/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Johnson Law Firm APC (San Diego)
    655 W. Broadway, Suite 1400, Johnson Law Firm APC (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.230.0063 619.230.5535 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date