The matter was also the tried in a court not subject to that technicality. The results (dismissal of the litigation) are summarized in the cited SEC document.
...Litigation Arising Out of Trading in Old LTV Stock
Soon after the trading in Old LTV Stock ceased, several groups of LTV shareholders who had purchased Old LTV Stock during the Trading Period, led by the market-making firm of Sullivan & Long, filed complaints against Scattered, Greenblatt, Jahelka, and Nichols. These cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in a class action complaint (the "Class Complaint"). The Class Complaint alleged that Scattered and its principals committed securities fraud in violation of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, sold unregistered securities in violation of Section 12(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, obtained unjust enrichment, and violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It named the CHX and the MCC as third-party defendants, seeking to impose a constructive trust on Scattered's LTV trading profits.
On March 29, 1994, the district court dismissed the Class Complaint with prejudice. [3] The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to allege any set of facts that would entitle them to relief. The court concluded that Scattered had neither made misleading statements nor engaged in market manipulation as alleged in the Class Complaint. Instead, the court found that Scattered had injected accurate information into the market, bringing the price of Old LTV Stock into line with its actual value. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. [4] ...
[3]: Scattered Corporation Securities Litigation, 844 F. Supp. 416, 419-21 (N.D. Ill. 1994).
[4]: Sullivan & Long, et al. v. Scattered Corporation, 47 F.3d 857 (7th Cir.) cert. denied sub nom. Harkins v. Scattered Corp., 516 U.S. 818 (1995).
sec.gov |
