ADT 2006 Annual Report Download - page 88

an order consolidating Ballard with the Securities Action. On July 12, 2004, the Company moved to
dismiss the complaint. On July 19, 2004, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the consolidation order.
On April 22, 2005, the Court granted PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s motion to dismiss. On July 11,
2005, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss. On July 12, 2005, the Court granted
plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. On August 5, 2005, the Company answered the plaintiffs’
complaint.
As previously reported in our periodic filings, plaintiff moved to remand Davis v. Kozlowski, an
action originally filed on December 9, 2003, from the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire back to the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. On March 17, 2005, the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted plaintiff’s motion to remand and
denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2005, the Company moved for reconsideration of
the Court’s remand order. On July 17, 2006, the Court entered an order granting Tyco’s motion to
dismiss on the grounds that all of plaintiff’s claims were preempted by federal law. The motion to
dismiss was granted without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to file another action in state court asserting
claims that are not preempted by federal law.
As previously reported in our periodic filings, a complaint, Sciallo v. Tyco International Ltd., et al.,
was filed on September 30, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The plaintiffs purport to be former executives of U.S. Surgical who traded their U.S. Surgical
stock options for Tyco International, Ltd. stock options when Tyco acquired U.S. Surgical on October 1,
1998. Plaintiffs name as defendants Tyco International Ltd. and certain former Tyco directors and
executives. The complaint asserts causes of action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, for common law fraud and negligence, and violation
of New York General Business Law Section 349, which prohibits deceptive acts and practices in the
conduct of any business. The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning, among other things, Tyco’s financial condition and accounting
practices. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred this action to the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
As previously reported in our periodic filings, a complaint was filed on September 2, 2004 in the
Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, Jasin v. Tyco International Ltd., et. al. This
pro se plaintiff named as additional defendants Tyco International (US) Inc., L. Dennis Kozlowski, our
former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mark H. Swartz, our former Chief Financial Officer and
Director and Juergen W. Gromer, currently President of Tyco Electronics. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts
causes of action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. Claims against
Messrs. Kozlowski, Swartz and Gromer are also asserted under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff
also asserts common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair trade practice, breach of contract,
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and violation of Section 1-402 of the Pennsylvania
Securities Act of 1972. Tyco has removed the complaint to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this action to
the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The plaintiff has moved to vacate
the conditional transfer order.
As previously reported in our periodic filings, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation was
notified that Hall v. Kozlowski may be an action that should be transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire. Thereafter, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. On
March 16, 2005, Tyco International (US) Inc. answered plaintiff’s amended complaint.
26 2006 Financials