Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 04/29/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 08, 2007

The original complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading press releases and SEC filings regarding Luminent's financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Luminent failed to disclose: (i) the Company was not sufficiently liquid; (ii) the Company's financial statements and reports were not prepared in accordance with GAAP and SEC rules; and (iii) that defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that the Company had ample liquidity and that the dividend payments were secure. As a result, the price of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. On August 6, 2007, however, defendants shocked the market when they announced that the Company was cancelling the payment of its dividend. In response to the announcement, Luminent's share price dropped to a low of $3.75 on August 6, 2007 before trading was halted. It then opened on August 7, 2007 at $0.50, representing a drop of over 85%.

The Court consolidated several class actions, and on November 21, 2007, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton appointed Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. On February 15, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On March 31, 2008, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On September 10, 2008, defendant Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. filed a notice of Voluntary Petition and Imposition of Automatic Stay due to bankruptcy proceedings. On December 10, 2008, the plaintiff filed a proposed order for preliminary approval of settlement and providing for notice.

On January 20, 2009, the District Court Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton signed the Order preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice. A hearing shall be held before this Court on April 29, 2009 to determine whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class and should be approved by the Court. The proposed settlement is in the amount of $8,000,000 in cash.

On April 29, 2009, Judge Hamilton granted the motion for attorney fees and expenses and awarded plaintiff’s counsel 25% of the settlement fund and reimbursement of $105,302.15 in expenses. That day, the Court approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Real Estate Operations
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LUM
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 07-CV-04073
JUDGE: Hon. Joseph C. Spero
DATE FILED: 08/08/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/24/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/06/2007
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. Audet & Partners, LLP
    221 Main Street Suite 1460, Audet & Partners, LLP, CA 94105
    415.982.1776 415.576.1776 · info@audetlaw.com
  3. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  4. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 · info@csgrr.com/
  5. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York)
    685 3rd Avenue 26th Floor, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York), NY
    212..983.9330 212..983.9331 ·
  6. Gardy & Notis, LLP (NJ)
    440 Sylvan Avenue, Gardy & Notis, LLP (NJ), NJ 07632
    201-567-7377 201-567-7337 · info@gardylaw.com
  7. 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
  8. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  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. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Walnut Creek)
    2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Walnut Creek), CA 94598
    925.945.0200 925.945.8792 · info@sbtklaw.com
  11. 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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 07-CV-04073
JUDGE: Hon. Joseph C. Spero
DATE FILED: 02/15/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/25/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/06/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lowey, Dannenberg, Bemporad & Selinger, P.C.
    1 North Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor, Lowey, Dannenberg, Bemporad & Selinger, P.C., NY 10601-1714
    914.997.0500 914.997.0035 · ldbs@wesetnet.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date