Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/30/2010 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: June 12, 2008

As the press has reported, on June 13, 2008, Dreier LLP announced that it, on behalf of Ms. Danièle Bobin as plaintiff and as a representative of purchasers of shares in EADS NV during the period of May 9, 2005, to March 11, 2008, inclusive, had filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Lagardère (Paris:MMB) and other defendants. The complaint alleged that Lagardère, Daimler and certain EADS directors had violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On August 4, 2008, the plaintiff terminated this action. This case has thus been dismissed. Since June 13, 2008, no other plaintiffs have filed any actions against Lagardère before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Lagardère SCA, which has always believed that this case was defective and without foundation, is pleased with this dismissal which marks the end of the case brought against it. Lagardère is a pure media group (books, press, broadcast, digital, travel retail and press distribution, sports trading and sports rights), and is among the world leaders in the sector.

According to a law firm press release dated June 12, 2008 a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor on behalf of U.S. citizens who purchased the publicly traded stock of European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. ("EADS" or the "Company") on the Frankfurt (Frankfurt: EAD.F), Madrid (Mercado Continuo: EAD.MC) and/or Paris (Paris: EAD.PA) stock exchanges.

The complaint charges EADS and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act. The Company manufactures airplanes and military equipment. The Company produces commercial aircrafts, including the various Airbus models, military fighter aircrafts, military and commercial helicopters, missiles, satellites, and telecommunications and defense systems.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, EADS falsely assured the investing public that it would overcome the technical problems in the production of the Company's Airbus A380 commercial jets ("A380") and it would be able to meet its year-end delivery deadlines. Moreover, the Company issued numerous positive
statements which described the Company's increasing financial performance.

According to the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that the Company was experiencing insurmountable delays in the manufacture of the A380 commercial jet; (ii) that the Company would be required to
compensate its customers for these delays through discounts and certain customers would likely be canceling their entire orders; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to receive new contract awards from commercial airliners and its ability to reap future revenues at the levels that it was projecting would be in serious doubt.

On June 13, 2006, the Company announced that its Airbus subsidiary was having production problems with the A380 commercial jet, which would cause a significant delay in delivery to its customers. The Company also issued a profit warning beyond 2006 which was attributable to these delays and announced that it anticipated annual shortfalls of EUR 500 million, without taking into account possible
contract terminations from existing customers.

Upon this announcement, shares of EADS fell EUR 6.69 per share, or 26%, to close at EUR 18.73 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On August 8, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 18, 2008, several actions were consolidated under Master File Civil Action No. 08-cv-05389 (JES). Bristol County Retirement System was appointed lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robins LLP were approved as lead counsel for the Class.

On November 3, 2008, a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The defendants have responded by filing motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On March 26, 2010, in a memorandum and order, the Court set forth that the Plaintiffs' causes of action against the Defendants were understandable and that the Plaintiffs’ sought the robust protections of federal securities laws in a United States court. But a court of limited jurisdiction lacks the authority to hear every grievance that arises overseas. For that reason the Court dismissed the case for lack of standing and subject matter jurisdiction.

Judgment was entered on March 31, 2010. On April 23, 2010, the plaintiff filed Notice of Appeal. The appeal is currently pending in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Aerospace & Defense
Headquarters: Netherlands

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: EAD
Company Market: Other Foreign
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-05389
JUDGE: Hon. John E. Sprizzo
DATE FILED: 06/12/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/17/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/13/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY)
    200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY), NY 11747
    631-367-7100 631-367-1173 · info@csgrr.com/
  2. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 08-CV-05389
JUDGE: Hon. John E. Sprizzo
DATE FILED: 11/03/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/27/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/09/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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/
  2. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
No Document Title Filing Date