Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/26/2013 (Other)

Filing Date: April 15, 2008

According to a press release dated April 15, 2008, a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of The Blackstone Group L.Ppursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s initial public offering on or about June 25, 2007 seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, the complaint charges Blackstone and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act. Blackstone, through its subsidiaries, provides alternative asset management and financial advisory services worldwide.

According to the complaint, on or about June 21, 2007, Blackstone filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration Statement (the “Registration Statement”), for the IPO. On or about June 25, 2007, the Prospectus (the “Prospectus”) with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and, including the exercise of the over-allotment, more than 133 million shares of Blackstone’s common stock were sold to the public at $31 per share, thereby raising more than $4 billion.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to disclose that certain of the Company’s portfolio companies were not performing well and were of declining value and, as a result, Blackstone’s equity investment was impaired and the Company would not generate anticipated performance fees on those investments or would have fees “clawed-back” by limited partners in its funds.

On March 10, 2008, Blackstone issued a press release announcing its financial results for the full year of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2007, the periods ending December 31, 2007. Among other disclosures, Blackstone announced that it was writing down its investment in Financial Guaranty Insurance Company by $122 million. As of April 15, 2008, Blackstone common stock traded in a range of $17-$17.50 per share, approximately 45% below the IPO price of $31.00 per share.

On September 22, 2009, an Opinion And Order on the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was granted. The rationale was based on the plaintiff electing to stand on it pleadings rather than to amend it in the face of Defendant's motion to dismiss as allowed by Individual Practices, Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice.

According to an order dated February 10, 2011, the United States Court Of Appeals
for The Second Circuit held that the District Court erred in dismissing for failure to state a claim plaintiffs’ complaint brought pursuant to Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act. This holding vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

On According to a Mandate issued on April 08, 2011, the judgment of the district court was Vacated and the case was Remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of the United States Court Of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On August 13, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On the same date, the Court also issued an Order dismissing the claims asserted in this action under Section 12(a)(2) under the 1933 Act.

On August 28, 2013, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. This Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court on August 30. The Court granted final approval of this Settlement on December 18th and ordered this case dismissed.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BX
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 08-CV-03601
JUDGE: Hon. Colleen McMahon
DATE FILED: 04/15/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/25/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/10/2008
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. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 08-CV-03601
JUDGE: Hon. Colleen McMahon
DATE FILED: 10/27/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/25/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/10/2008
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza), NY 10119
    212.279.5050 212.279.3655 · JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com
  2. Brower Piven (New York)
    488 Madison Avenue. Eighth Floor, Brower Piven (New York), NY 10022
    212.501.9000 212.501.0300 · info@browerpiven.com
  3. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date