Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FOOD & ALLIED SERV. TRADES DEPT. v. MILLFELD TRADI

January 5, 1994

FOOD and ALLIED SERVICE TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
MILLFELD TRADING CO., INC., BARRY FELDSTEIN, GLENN FELDSTEIN, DALE WHITNEY, TERREN S. PEIZER, and MICHAEL CALLAHAN, Defendants.


Sand


The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEONARD B. SAND

SAND, J.

 Plaintiff Food and Allied Service Trades Department, AFL-CIO ("FAST"), brought this securities class action on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated shareholders of defendant Millfeld Trading Co., Inc. ("Millfeld"). Millfeld is a Delaware corporation in the primary business of importing and marketing shoes; it went public in January 1990. In early 1992, the price of Millfeld stock collapsed after Millfeld disclosed that it was being investigated by federal prosecutors for systematic underpayment of its Customs duties over the preceding five years (the "Announcement").

 This collapse of Millfeld stock, not surprisingly, produced more than one lawsuit against the company and its directors. Two such cases against Millfeld and its officers are before this Court -- the instant suit brought by FAST in July 1992, and another one filed a month earlier by plaintiffs Pentland USA, Inc. and Pentland Group PLC (collectively, "Pentland"). Both suits arise out of the same underlying transactions by Millfeld, and both allege securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5, and state common law.

 In both cases, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint on the grounds that it failed to allege fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). In a hearing on December 10, 1992, this Court granted defendants' motions in both cases and gave plaintiffs leave to file amended complaints in both actions.

 DISCUSSION

 This action resembles the Pentland action in most material respects. In particular, both actions arise from the same set of underlying transactions, and the complaints in both actions allege essentially the same set of material facts. The fundamental differences between the two actions are twofold:

 1) FAST brings this action as representative of a class. The named class comprises all shareholders who purchased shares of Millfeld common stock between January 19, 1990, the date on which Millfeld went public, and April 27, 1992, the date on which it claims the market fully assimilated Millfeld's February 1992 disclosure of its Customs underpayments; and

 2) While Pentland named as defendants only Millfeld and Barry Feldstein, Millfeld's former CEO, president and chairman, FAST names four additional individual defendants who were officers and/or directors of Millfeld during the relevant time period. *fn2"

 The first distinction -- the class nature of this action -- has no bearing on the motions to dismiss. As to the second distinction, we will treat the motions to dismiss in two groups -- those brought by defendants who were also defendants in the Pentland action (the "Pentland defendants"), and those brought by defendants not named in Pentland (the "non-Pentland defendants").

 I. The Pentland Defendants

 Millfeld and Barry Feldstein are the defendants named in both Pentland and this action. As noted above, by Opinion dated December 15, 1993 we denied these two defendants' motions to dismiss in the Pentland action. Finding no material differences between the two matters with respect to these common defendants, we now adopt the reasoning of the Pentland Opinion with regard to these two defendants, and we deny the motions to dismiss made by Millfeld and Barry Feldstein in this action.

 II. The Non-Pentland Defendants

 Having concluded that FAST has adequately alleged a "primary" violation of Section 10(b) with regard to Millfeld and Barry Feldstein, we now address issues of "secondary" liability with regard to the remaining defendants. FAST offers two theories of secondary liability under the Exchange Act for the remaining defendants: first, that they incurred liability as "controlling persons" under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; second, that they "aided and abetted" the primary violators.

 A. The Defendants

 The remaining defendants are described as follows in the Amended Complaint:

 1) Glenn Feldstein, a son of Barry Feldstein, was Vice President of Sales, Secretary, and a director of Millfeld from 1989 to about February 1992, when he was terminated from these positions in the wake of the Announcement. The Amended Complaint alleges that he was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by the United States Attorney in connection with Millfeld's Customs underpayments since February 1992 or before.

 2) Dale Whitney became Vice President of Operations and Treasurer of Millfeld in 1981, and became a director in August 1989. He was terminated as Vice president and Treasurer and resigned from the Board in February 1992. The Amended Complaint alleges that he was also ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.