Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/17/2006 (Other)

Filing Date: December 07, 2001

On May 26, 2005 the judge ordered the case dismissed. The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts decision on January 13, 2006 and February 16, 2006.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2005, on March 24, 2003, the court granted AllianceBernstein’s motion to transfer the Jaffe Complaint to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for coordination with the now dismissed Benak v. Alliance Capital Management L.P. and Alliance Premier Growth Fund action then pending. On December 5, 2003, plaintiff filed an amended complaint (“Amended Jaffe Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of Section 36(a) of the Investment Company Act, common law negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. Specifically, the Amended Jaffe Complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, care and good faith to Large Cap Growth Fund by causing Large Cap Growth Fund to invest in securities of Enron, (ii) the defendants were negligent for investing in securities of Enron, and (iii) through prospectuses and other documents defendants misrepresented material facts related to Large Cap Growth Fund’s investment objective and policies. On January 23, 2004, defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Jaffe Complaint. On May 23, 2005, the court granted defendant’s motion and dismissed the case on the ground that plaintiff failed to make a demand on the Large Cap Growth Fund’s Board of Directors (“LCG Board”) pursuant to Rule 23.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s time to file an appeal has expired. On June 15, 2005, plaintiff made a demand on the LCG Board, requesting that the LCG Board take action against AllianceBernstein for the reasons set forth in the Amended Jaffe Complaint. In December 2005, the LCG Board rejected plaintiff’s demand.

By the docket 01-CV-05734, on September 4, 2002, the Court entered the Pre-trial Order No. 1 consolidating all the actions and appointing co-lead and liaison counsel. On January 6, 2003, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the Court by the Order entered on May 26, 2005. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on January 6, 2005. On February 17, 2006, the Court entered the Mandate from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirming the decision of the District Court.

As disclosed by the Company’s FORM 10-K For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2001, on December 7, 2001 a complaint entitled Benak v. Alliance Capital Management L.P. and Alliance Premier Growth Fund (“Benak Complaint”) was filed in federal district court in the District of New Jersey against Alliance Capital and Premier Growth Fund alleging violation of the Investment Company Act. The principal allegations of the Benak Complaint are that Alliance Capital breached its duty of loyalty to Premier Growth Fund because one of the directors of the General Partner of Alliance Capital served as a director of Enron Corp. (“Enron”) when Premier Growth Fund purchased shares of Enron and as a consequence thereof the investment advisory fees paid to Alliance Capital by Premier Growth Fund should be returned as a means of recovering for Premier Growth Fund the losses plaintiff allege were caused by the alleged breach of the duty of loyalty. Plaintiff seeks recovery of certain fees paid by Premier Growth Fund to Alliance Capital. On December 21, 2001 a complaint entitled Roy v. Alliance Capital Management L.P. and Alliance Premier Growth Fund (“Roy Complaint”) was filed in federal district court in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, against Alliance Capital and Premier Growth Fund. The allegations and relief sought in the Roy Complaint are virtually identical to the Benak Complaint. On March 13, 2002 the court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the Roy Complaint to federal district court in the District of New Jersey. On December 26, 2001 a complaint entitled Roffe v. Alliance Capital Management L.P. and Alliance Premier Growth Fund (“Roffe Complaint”) was filed in federal district court in the District of New Jersey against Alliance Capital and Premier Growth Fund. The allegations and relief sought in the Roffe Complaint are virtually identical to the Benak Complaint. On February 14, 2002 a complaint entitled Tatem v. Alliance Capital Management L.P. and Alliance Premier Growth Fund (“Tatem Complaint”) was filed in federal district court in the District of New Jersey against Alliance Capital and Premier Growth Fund. The allegations and relief sought in the Tatem Complaint are virtually identical to the Benak Complaint. On March 6, 2002 a complaint entitled Gissen v. Alliance Capital Management L.P. and Alliance Premier Growth Fund (“Gissen Complaint”) was filed in federal district court in the District of New Jersey against Alliance Capital and Premier Growth Fund. The allegations and relief sought in the Gissen Complaint are virtually identical to the Benak Complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Misc. Financial Services
Headquarters: United States

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: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 01-CV-05734
JUDGE: Hon. John W. Bissell
DATE FILED: 12/07/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/30/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/29/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 · info@abbeygardy.com
  2. James V. Bashian
    500 Fifth Ave Ste 2800, James V. Bashian, NY 10110
    ·
  3. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.
    210 Summit Avenue, Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., NJ 07645
    201-391-7000 201-307-1086 · kgg@kgglaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 01-CV-05734
JUDGE: Hon. John W. Bissell
DATE FILED: 01/06/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/30/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/29/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 · info@abbeygardy.com
  2. James V. Bashian
    500 Fifth Ave Ste 2800, James V. Bashian, NY 10110
    ·
  3. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.
    210 Summit Avenue, Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., NJ 07645
    201-391-7000 201-307-1086 · kgg@kgglaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date