Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/16/2003 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 23, 1998

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For The Quarterly Period Ended March 28, 1998, on April 23, 1998, a lawsuit, Hoeck v. CompUSA Inc. et al., was filed by a stockholder of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and certain of its officers, seeking class action status on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's Common Stock and related publicly traded options during the class period. The action alleges various violations of the federal securities laws.

As summarized by the the Notice of Proposed Settlement dated July 31, 2003, on or after April 23, 1998, the following class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division : Hoeck v. CompUSA, Inc., et al., No. 3-98 -CV0998-G and Silverberg v. CompUSA, Inc., et al., No. 3-98-CV1457-T. These cases were consolidated for all purposes by Order dated July 27, 1998 (the "Litigation"). On June 23, 1998, the Court appointed a group of plaintiffs including Frederick Hoeck, Stephen Winarick, Alan Koch and Bruce Devlin as Lead Plaintiffs under §21 D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and approved Lead Plaintiffs' selection of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP and Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel and Stanley, Mandel & Iola, LLP, as Liaison Counsel, pursuant to §21(D)(a)(3)(B)(v) of the Exchange Act. Frederick Hoeck, Stephen Winarick, Alan Koch and Bruce Devlin were subsequently pursuant to Court Order appointed as Class Representatives. On August 25, 1998, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint for Violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("CAC") naming as defendants CompUSA and certain individuals. On or about September 25, 1998, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC. Thereafter on August 30, 1999, the Court granted Defendants motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On September 20, 1999, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Complaint") naming the same defendants that were named in the CAC. On September 15, 2000, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims with prejudice against all defendants except CompUSA and one individual defenant. On October 16, 2000, Defendant CompUSA and the remaining individual defendant filed a motion to reconsider the Court's September 15, 2000 Order. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration on November 27, 2000. Thereafter, on December 22, 2000, the Defendants answered the Complaint. On September 28, 2001, the Court certified a Class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock and publicly traded options of CompUSA between December 31, 1997 and April 29, 1998.

A settlement hearing has been scheduled for October 14, 2003, to determine if the settlement, in the amount of $6.1 million, should be approved.

On October 14, 2003, the settlement was held. According to the Orders issued that day, the Court awarded Lead Counsel attorneys' fees of 30% of the Settlement fund and litigation expenses in the amount of $122,655.83, approved the Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds, and approved the settlement as fair, just, reasonable and adequate to the Class. The action is dismissed with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Technology)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CPU
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. Texas
DOCKET #: 98-CV-00998
JUDGE: Hon. A. Joe Fish
DATE FILED: 04/23/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/31/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/05/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  2. Schiffrin, Craig & Barroway
    3 Bala Plaza, East, Suite 400, Schiffrin, Craig & Barroway, PA 19004
    610-667-7706 ·
  3. Stanley, Mandel & Iola LLP (Dallas)
    3100 Monticello Avenue, Suite 750 , Stanley, Mandel & Iola LLP (Dallas), TX 75205
    214.443.4300 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 98-CV-00998
JUDGE: Hon. A. Joe Fish
DATE FILED: 09/20/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/31/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/29/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  2. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date