.
American Dental Partners
.
A class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class (the “Class”) of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of American Dental Partners, Inc. (“ADPI” or the “Company”) between August 10, 2005 and December 13, 2007 inclusive (the “Class Period”).
ADPI is a leading provider of business services to multidisciplinary dental group practices in selected markets throughout the United States. Park Dental Group (“PDG”) located in Minneapolis-St. Paul area, was one of the dental groups who had a long-term contract agreement with ADPI, and provided ADPI with significant revenue. Indeed, PDG accounted for 29 percent of ADPI’s consolidated net revenue in 2006.
The business relationship between ADPI and PDG worked well for a number of years, but disputes arose in 2004. In February 2006, PDG sued ADPI and its subsidiary. On December 12, 2007, in connection with the lawsuit a jury found ADPI and/or its subsidiary liable for breach of contract, breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract and prospective advantage. The jury awarded PDG $88 million to compensate it for the injuries caused it by ADPI and its subsidiary and punitive damages of $42 million.
After the announcement of the jury verdict, ADPI’s stock plummeted from $19.70 a share on December 11, 2007 to $14.34 on December 12, 2007, to $4.62 on December 13, 2007 after the announcement of the punitive damage award.
The complaint charges ADPI and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price of ADPI shares. More specifically, the complaint alleges that ADPI financial statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and misleading because defendants knew that a substantial amount of ADPI’s revenue and earnings were obtained by conduct, which was wrongful and tortuous as, found by a jury on December 12, 2007.
If you acquired the securities of the defendants during the Class Period you may, no later than the Lead Plaintiff Deadline shown above, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff through counsel of your choice. You may also choose to remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff must meet certain requirements.
.
More info at our referral site:
San Francisco, CA, October 12, 2007 –(PR.com)– When asked if they think celebrity cosmetic dentists are good for the profession, two out of three dentists say TV dentists are good for dentistry, according to a recent survey by The Wealthy Dentist. The majority feels that media exposure only makes the public more aware of what cosmetic dentistry can offer. The remaining 38% of dentists feel that these docs are pushing appearance over health, and it’s not making dentists look good.Some dentists see cosmetic dentistry, particularly as represented by celebrity doctors, as at odds with health care and professionalism. “We need to do what’s best for the patient and not a quick fix,” said one pediatric dentist. “There are more important things than the best possible smile using too white and ultra perfect teeth,” agreed a California dentist. “Restoring them and keeping them is more important.”
