| On
December 10, 1999, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Tyco International and two of its senior officers, Dennis Kozlowski and
Mark H. Swartz, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Tyco
stock between 12/10/98 and 12/8/99.
Tyco and its officers are charged with violating federal SEC laws and
providing false and misleading financial information causing Tyco's
stock to be traded at artificially inflated prices. Certain officers
took advantage of this alleged insider information, selling what has
been reported as between 1.5 and 2.7 million shares of stock for over
$170 to $270 million.
The FPC believes that these charges illustrate
how a new corporate owner, such as Tyco, who is interested only in
profits, can mismanage what was once a fine company and a former
industry leader, namely Grinnell. This securities fraud case is only the
latest class action suits filed against Tyco/Grinnell. Several cities in
southern California have filed a suit and are seeking class action
status against Tyco over allegations that Tyco's subsidiaries sold
defective piping systems to those cities. |
The
FPC also believes that Tyco has failed to comply with additional
securities laws that regulate how companies are supposed to disclose
these types of pending litigation to shareholders and potential
investors. Tyco/Grinnell are facing or have settled numerous courtsuits
that have charged the company with selling defective piping and fire
protection systems. Although the FPC believes this avalanche of
litigation against Tyco/Grinnell could have a material impact on the
company, this litigation has been inadequately disclosed to Tyco's
shareholders and potential investors. The FPC intends to send this
litigation information to the attorneys that are suing Tyco for the
securities and accounting fraud.
The news that the SEC commenced an inquiry into Tyco's accounting
practices in early October caused shares of Tyco
stocks, which were trading at the inflated rate of above $50/share in
mid-October, 1999 to plummet to almost half on December 9, 1999. If you
purchased Tyco stock during the period mentioned above and have
questions regarding your rights, you are encouraged to contact: Dennis
J. Johnson, Esquire or Jacob B. Perkinson, Esquire at The Law Offices of
Dennis J. Johnson, 1690 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont 05402,
888-459-7855, or e-mail LODJJ@aol.com. |
2 Workers injured
on waste MGNT. job
O’Leary V. Grinnell, Others
Dennis O’Leary was working for a drywall company on a job at a
waste management facility in Chicago when he tripped on piping that
Grinnell had left on the floor of a work area, severely injuring
himself. His complaint charges that Grinnell: "Carelessly and
negligently placed piping on the floor…creating a known dangerous
condition. Carelessly and negligently creat(ing) an unsafe and hazardous
work area...that as a result of the negligent acts the plaintiff caused
serious and permanent injuries to his body." This case is currently
pending.
Grinnell and others who were on that job began filing a flurry of
counterclaims against each other seeking to spread the blame for
O’Leary’s injuries. For instance, Grinnell counter-sued O’Leary’s
employer Atlas Drywall.
CARGILL V. grinnell, OTHERS
David Cargill was also working on the waste management facility job
in Chicago when he fell off of a platform and was badly injured. His
complaint charges that Grinnell’s operations on the job produced:
"…exhaust, gasses and other fumes …it was the duty of Grinnell
to avoid creating work place hazards including exhaust, gasses and/or
other fumes. (Grinnell) failed to warn Cargill of any dangerous
conditions including the accumulation of gasses and fumes."
The complaint charged that as a result of the negligent acts of
Grinnell, Cargill was injured. The case is pending. |
| The 1991 explosions and fires at
IMC Chemical in Louisiana was one of the worst industrial accidents in
recent history. Eight people were killed, hundreds were inured and there
was almost $150 million in damage to the plant and neighboring property.
Many of the injured persons sued Grinnell who had originally
installed the fire protection system at the plant. |
The suit charged that Grinnell’s
system failed to contain the fires caused by the explosions at the
plant. Under Louisiana law, since Grinnell had originally in-stalled the
fire protection system according to the customer’s specifications,
Grinnell was "immunized."
The Critic wonders whether Grinnell should have originally advised
the client that the proposed fire protection system would not contain
the site’s potential for fires and explosions? |
FPC
