Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. Files Class Action Lawsuit Against American Dental Partners, Inc.
American Dental Partners zu myNews hinzufügen Was ist das?
The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has filed a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of its client and on behalf of other similarly
situated purchasers of American Dental Partners, Inc. (Nasdaq:ADPI;
"ADPI" or the "Company") securities between August 10, 2005 through
December 13, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges ADPI and three of its officers and directors with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act”).
It is alleged that defendants omitted or misrepresented material adverse
facts about the Company’s financial condition,
business prospects, and revenue expectations during the Class Period.
ADPI claims to be a leading provider of business services to
multidisciplinary dental group practices in selected markets throughout
the United States. As of December 31, 2006, ADPI was affiliated with 22
dental group practices, comprising 470 fulltime equivalent dentists
practicing in 209 dental facilities in 18 states and its securities were
actively traded on the NASDAQ.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued
numerous materially false and misleading statements which caused ADPI’s
securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. More specifically,
the complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company
engaged in unlawful conduct towards Park Dental Group ("PDG"); (2) that
as a result of this conduct, the Company booked a large portion of
earnings and revenue which materially inflated its financial figures;
(3) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) that the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that,
as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Beginning on January 1, 1999, ADPI’s
subsidiary, PDHC, Ltd. ("PDHC"), entered into a Service Agreement (the
"Service Agreement") with PDG. The Service Agreement was amended January
1, 2001 and again on August 10, 2005. According to the Company's
financial statements, the relationship with PDG accounted for
approximately 30% of its consolidated net revenues between 2004 and
2006. No other customer of ADPI accounted for more than 10% of the
Company's consolidated net revenue.
The complaint alleges that on December 12, 2007, investors were shocked
to learn that a judgment had been awarded in favor of PDG, against PDHC
and ADPI. As the complaint describes, the jury in the case awarded PDG
more than $88,290,000 in damages, broken down as follows: $9,413,397 in
compensatory damages for breach of the Service Agreement; $11,500,000
for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing; $200,000
for breach of fiduciary duty; $67,000,000 for tortious interference with
contract or prospective advantage; and $177,250 for defamation. The
complaint alleges that upon the release of this news, the Company's
shares declined $5.36 per share, or 27.21 percent, to close on December
12, 2007 at $14.34 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint further alleges that the following day, as the public
continued to learn of the December 12, 2007 judgment against ADPI,
investors were shocked to learn that due to ADPI's alleged conduct and
actions, the jury had also awarded PDG $42,250,000 in punitive damages.
On this news, the Company's shares declined $9.72 per share, or 67.78
percent, to close on December 13, 2007 at $4.62 per share, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than March 31, 2008,
request that the Court appoint you as Lead Plaintiff of the class. Any
member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to remain an
absent class member.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has significant experience in
prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving securities
fraud. The firm has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia,
Chicago, San Francisco, and London, and is active in major litigation
pending in federal and state courts throughout the nation. You may visit
the firm’s website at www.cmht.com.
The firm’s reputation for excellence has been
recognized on repeated occasions by courts which have appointed the firm
to lead positions in complex multi-district or consolidated litigation.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has taken a lead role in
numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has been
responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in the
aggregate, total in the billions of dollars.
If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with
regard to your rights, please contact either of the following:
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Laura Armstrong
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
Email: stoll@cmht.com or larmstrong@cmht.com
