Fleming Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation
This lawsuit alleges two principal claims:
1. Violations of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Section 10(b)")
A. Plaintiffs allege that Fleming, Mark Hansen, Neal J. Rider, Mark D. Shapiro, Thomas G. Dahlen, Carol B. Hallett, and Alice M. Peterson misled investors by reporting financial results that were materially false and misleading and by misrepresenting the success of Fleming's strategic plan to convert its retail stores from traditional grocery stores to warehouse-type stores. Plaintiffs claim that to report growth and financial strength Fleming improperly accounted for a number of transactions – including improper vendor deductions and up-front payments received from suppliers – and manipulated same-store sales for its retail stores.
B. Plaintiffs also allege that Fleming's independent auditor, Deloitte & Touche, misled investors during the Class Period by reporting that Fleming's financial statements presented fairly the financial condition of and results of operations of the Company in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles in the United States when it knew or was severely reckless in not knowing that Fleming's financial statements were materially false and misleading.
2. Violations of § 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Sections 11 and 12") This lawsuit also alleges that the Registration Statements and Prospectuses filed with the SEC as part of the June 2002 offering of 9.2 million shares of Fleming stock and $200 million face amount 91/4% senior notes, and the March 2002 exchange offering of $400 million face amount Series D 105/8% senior subordinated notes reported Fleming Companies, Inc's. financial results that were materially false and misleading and misrepresented the success of Fleming's strategic plan to convert its retail stores from traditional grocery stores to warehouse-type stores. The Plaintiffs sued the Fleming Defendants, Deloitte & Touche, and the Underwriter Defendants for violations of Sections 11 and 12, except Plaintiffs did not sue the Underwriter Defendants in connection with the March 2002 offering.
Read More
Contact us for more information