LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

MDCM HOLDINGS INC v CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON CORP Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: MHIVCSFBC260213, CourtName: MISC 2, Plaintiff: MDCM HOLDINGS INC, State: FL Florida, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>MHIVCSFBC260213, Underwriting, Ipo, Securities, Compensation, Mdcm, Shares, Underwriting Agreement, Scheme, Breach, Damages, Unjust Enrichment, Purchasers, Investors, District, Pursuant, Price, York, Excess Compensation, Contract, Florida, Profits, Allocations, Offerings, Proper, Issuers, Foregoing , ContentID: 120252749

Case Documents
1   COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 127852
10 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 10 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . COMPLAINT

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PLAINTIFF
MEMBERS
UNDERWRITING
IPO
SECURITIES
COMPENSATION
MDCM
SHARES
UNDERWRITING AGREEMENT
SCHEME
BREACH
DAMAGES
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
BUSINESS
PURCHASERS
INVESTORS
DISTRICT
PURSUANT
PRICE
YORK
EXCESS COMPENSATION
CONTRACT
FLORIDA
PROFITS
ALLOCATIONS
OFFERINGS
PROPER
ISSUERS
FOREGOING
                                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                        SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                                                   CASE NO.


 MDCM HOLDINGS, INC., on behalf of itself and
 others similarly situated,

                          Plaintiff,

           -against-

 CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON CORPORATION,

                          Defendant.






                                         CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
                                            JURY TRIAL DEMAND

                    Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned attorneys, for its complaint alleges

following, which is based upon the investigation of its attorneys, including, among other things,

consultation with experts and a review and analysis of public filings and publicly available

information concerning industry practices in general and defendant's practices in particular,

to the pricing of, and distribution and allocation of shares issued in, initial public offerings

                                             Jurisdiction And Venue

                    1.         Plaintiff brings this action for common law breach of contract and

enrichment.

                    2.         This Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

                    3.         Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)

Defendant conducts business in this District, including contracting with plaintiff to underwrite and


underwriting, plaintiff's IPO.  Moreover, many of the acts giving rise to the violations complained
SNIPPETS:
  • MDCM HOLDINGS, INC., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
  • Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned attorneys, for its complaint alleges the
  • to the pricing of, and distribution and allocation of shares issued in, initial public
  • Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391and
  • Defendant conducts business in this District, including contracting with plaintiff to
  • underwriting, plaintiff's IPO.
  • Freeman, Assignee for the Benefit of Creditors, is a Florida corporation, with its principal
  • place of business in this District.
  • MDCM's damages from the conduct complained of herein exceed $75,000.
  • IPO registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
  • and represented that it would resell the shares to the public at a price of $8.00 per
  • the principal place of business of which is in New York.
  • The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is
  • plaintiff and members of the Class sustained damages arising out of defendant's breach of
  • Defendants' Scheme to Obtain Excess Compensation
  • acts as an underwriter in the public offering of securities by issuers,
  • issuer and the price at which the underwriter resells the securities to public investors.
  • Specifically, defendant's excess compensation was obtained by, among other
  • the customers' profits from their IPO allocations, and allocating IPO shares to persons and
  • increase the profits realized by its customers of which profits a share was kicked-back to
  • and used the profits inherent in an underpriced IPO to curry favor with other purchasers so
  • Plaintiff and defendant entered into a standardized underwriting agreement
  • As a result of the foregoing, defendant breached both the express terms of the
  • breach of contract in an amount to be proven at trial.
  • Count II - Unjust Enrichment and Restitution
  •    |