 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFF COMMON STOCK FACTS BUSINESS ALLEGATIONS CONTRACT MEMBERS CLASS PERIOD MATERIALS SECURITIES CARE YORK MISLEADING PURCHASERS CIGNA CONTRACT INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS MARGIN PRESSURES SECURITIES ACT MEDICARE AUDIT MATERIALLY FALSE HOME HEALTH EXCHANGE ACT MATERIAL ADVERSE STAFFING SERVICES PROSPECTUS NETWORK PROVIDERS OLSTEN SHARES MANAGEMENT MANAGED CARE |
David J. Bershad (DB-9981)
Steven G. Schulman (SS-2561)
Samuel H. Rudman
MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
HYNES & LERACH LLP
One Penn Plaza
New York, New York 10119
(212) 594-5300
[Additional Counsel Listed
On Signature Page]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________)
GAIL WEICHMAN on behalf of )
herself and all others similarly )
situated, ) CASE NO. CV 97 1946
)
Plaintiff, ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
) FOR VIOLATIONS OF
v. ) FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
)
OLSTEN CORPORATION, MIRIAM OLSTEN, )
WILLIAM OLSTEN, ANTHONY J. PUGLISI )
and FRANK LIGOURI, ))
Defendants. )
___________________________________)
Plaintiff makes the following allegations upon
information and belief, except as to allegations specifically
pertaining to plaintiff and her counsel, based on the facts
alleged below, predicated upon the investigation undertaken by
and under the supervision of plaintiff's counsel, and plaintiff
believes that further substantial evidentiary support will exist
for the allegations set forth below after a reasonable
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
DOCKET
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNSEL PLA CONSOLIDATE DFTS ATTY MOTION REMARK NONCOMPLIANCE W/ADM PARTIES COURT NONCOMPLIANCE W/ADM DDL PURPOSES DATABASE CHAN DOCKET DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROBERT BROOMFIELD COMPLAINT CMP MTN ATTY AHAVIAH GLASER BROBECK PHLEGER W/ADM DDL DTE RESP SHL DYS |
Case docket was last updated on: 07/14/00.
Docket as of July 14, 2000 11:10 pm Page 1
Proceedings include all events. CONSOL
2:96cv1520 Boren, et al v. Weinstein, et al PROTO
CONSOL PROTO
U.S. District Court
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 96-CV-1520
Boren, et al v. Weinstein, et al Filed:
06/24/96
Assigned to: Judge Robert C Broomfield
Demand: $0,000 Nature of Suit: 160
Lead Docket: 96-CV-1514 Jurisdiction: Federal
Question
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act
JEFFREY M BOREN, on behalf of Francis Joseph Balint, Jr, Esq
himself and all others FAX (602)274-1199
similarly situated [COR LD NTC -]
pla Andrew S Friedman, Esq
FAX (602)274-1199
[COR LD NTC -]
Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &
Balint PC
4041 N Central
Ste 1100
Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
274-1100
William Shannon Lerach
[COR LD NTC -]
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach LLP
600 W Broadway
Ste 1800
San Diego, CA 92101
(619)231-1058
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
ORDER 1
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS COMPLAINT PLAINTIFFS ACT UNDERWRITERS STOCK ALLEGE VIOLATION FRAUD SECURITIES FRAUD ASSERT FACTS FDA EXHIBITS MOTION ALLEGATIONS WARNING LETTER DISTRICT COURT REFORM ACT INSIDER TRADING MISLEADING EXCHANGE ACT VOLPE WELTY SECOND CIRCUIT ILLEGAL PROMOTION PARTICULARITY CAC INSUFFICIENT CLASS PERIOD |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
DERRIC C. CHAN, et al., On ) No. CIV-96-1514-PHX-RCS
Behalf of Themselves and All ) [filed Feb. 5, 1998]
Others Similarly Situated,, )) O R D E R
Plaintiffs, ))
vs. ))
ORTHOLOGIC CORPORATION, et al.,))
Defendants. )
_______________________________)
This class action complaint is filed on behalf of those who
purchased OrthoLogic Corporation ("OrthoLogic") stock between
January 18, 1996 and June 18, 1996. The complaint alleges
violations of The Exchange Act §§10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5,
and violations of §11 of The Exchange Act against all Defendants.
Count three alleges violations of §§12(a)(2) and 15 against
Defendants OrthoLogic, Hambrecht & Quist ("H&Q"), Dain Bosworth
Incorporated ("DBI"), and Volpe Welty & Company ("Volpe"), three
companies that served as OrthoLogic's underwriters. Count four
alleges (Arizona) Statutory Securities Fraud against, apparently,
all Defendants, and the last count, count five, asserts that
Defendants committed Consumer Fraud, in violation of A.R.S. §44-
1522. Defendants OrthoLogic, Weinstein, Dunaway, Derminio, Magee,
Holliman, Feldman, Howse, and White filed a motion to dismiss on
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
ORDER 2
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CHAN PLAINTIFFS PHILADELPHIA LEAD PLAINTIFFS PURCHASES INVESTORS COURT CLASS PERIOD PRESUMPTION ALLEGE STOCK DEFENDANTS APPOINTMENT MEMBERS SHARES CITY CONFLICT SECURITIES FDA COUNSEL MOTION PUBLICATION MARKET LITIGATION ADEQUATE ASSERTION UNIQUE DEFENSES TYPICALITY DISCLOSURE BLACKIE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
DERRIC C. CHAN and ANNA CHAN )
as attorney-in-fact for )
Moon-Yung Chow, On Behalf of )
Themselves and All Others )
Similarly Situated, et al., )) No. CIV 96-1514 PHX RCB
Plaintiffs, )) O R D E R
vs. ))
ORTHOLOGIC CORPORATION, )
et al., ))
Defendants. )
______________________________)
This is a securities fraud class action brought pursuant
to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Since it was filed
it has been consolidated with eleven other cases filed in this
district. Now before the court are two motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff and for the appointment of lead
plaintiff's counsel; one from the Chan plaintiffs and one from
the Boren, Draker, Rutkin, DeFelice and Longacre plaintiffs
("Philadelphia plaintiffs"). Oral argument was heard on
November 18, 1996, at which time these matters were taken
under advisement. Now, having carefully considered the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
