LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

CONSECO INC CLASS ACTION LITIGATION Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: CICAL178350, CourtName: CLASS ACTION CASES, State: MD Maryland, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>CICAL178350, Carnegie, Securities, Exchange Act, Class Action, Stock, Complaint, Pursuant, Farkas, Shares, Financial Statements, District, Price, Class Period, Misleading, Misrepresentations, Common Stock, Accounting, Promulgated Thereunder, States District Court, Material Facts, Acquisitions, Individual Defendants, Amex, Violations, Transactions, Exchange Commission, Jurisdiction , ContentID: 120249597

Case Documents
1   COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 122233
13 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 13 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . COMPLAINT

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFF
SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT
CLASS ACTION
STOCK
COMPLAINT
PURSUANT
MEMBERS
FARKAS
SHARES
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DISTRICT
PRICE
CLASS PERIOD
MISLEADING
MISREPRESENTATIONS
COMMON STOCK
ACCOUNTING
PROMULGATED THEREUNDER
STATES DISTRICT COURT
MATERIAL FACTS
ACQUISITIONS
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
AMEX
VIOLATIONS
TRANSACTIONS
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
JURISDICTION
                    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

   ALLAN GENUT,Individually And On) )

   Behalf Of All Others Similarly )

   Situated, )

   Plaintiff, )

   ) SECURITIES CLASS ACTION

   vs. )

   ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

   CARNEGIE INTERNATIONAL CORP- )

   ORATION, E. DAVID GABLE, )

   LOWELL FARKAS, B. CHRIS )

   SCHWARTZ and BENNETT H. GOLD- )

   STEIN, )

   Defendants )

   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                 COMPLAINT

                                INTRODUCTION

   Plaintiff, for his class action complaint (the "Complaint") alleges,
   (based, in part, upon the investigation conducted by and through his
   undersigned attorneys), the following:

                           JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
       pursuant to Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
       "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. ß 78aa.
    2. The claims asserted herein arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • CARNEGIE INTERNATIONAL CORP-)
  • Plaintiff, for his class action complaint alleges,, the following:
  • This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 27 of
  • The claims asserted herein arise under Sections 10and 20of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. ßß
  • Venue is proper in this district pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act because defendant
  • In connection with the acts alleged in this Complaint, defendants, directly and indirectly,
  • This action is brought as a class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
  • During the Class Period, defendants engaged in a course of conduct that was designed to, and members of the Class to purchase Carnegie's securities at inflated prices.
  • Plaintiff Allan Genut purchased 1,000 shares of Carnegie common stock on March 30, 1999 at
  • Defendant Lowell Farkas was, at all relevant times, President, Chief Executive Officer and a
  • whether documents, releases, reports and statements disseminated to the investing public
  • defendants made public misrepresentations during the Class Period,
  • Subsequently, Carnegie engaged in a series of acquisitions, and certain sales, of
  • The average price of Carnegie stock in 1997 was $0.74 per share.
  • On April 30, 1999, the first day of trading in Carnegie stock on the AMEX, as discussed
  • The statements above were false and misleading when made since, as disclosed subsequently,
  • SEC Regulation S-X ) states that financial statements filed with the SEC which are not
  • The above transactions have been recorded under the purchase method of accounting and,
  • The Individual Defendants were motivated to make the misrepresentations discussed herein
  •    |