ADT 2007 Annual Report Download - page 125

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, 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.
As previously reported in our periodic filings, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation was
notified that Hall v. Kozlowski, et al. an action relating to plaintiff’s employment, 401(k) and pension
plans and ownership of Tyco stock, 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.
As previously reported in our periodic filings, plaintiff moved to remand Davis v. Kozlowski et al.,
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. On January 8, 2007, plaintiff filed an action in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief. On January 12, 2007, Tyco removed the re-filed action to federal court in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On February 1, 2007, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued a conditional transfer order transferring the case to the
District of New Hampshire. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court on February 12,
2007 and moved the JPML to vacate the conditional transfer order on March 9, 2007. We filed an
opposition to the motion to vacate on March 29, 2007. On March 15, 2007, we filed an opposition to
plaintiff’s remand motion and filed a cross-motion to dismiss the action. Briefing on the cross-motion
was completed on April 26, 2007. On May 31, 2007, the JPML denied the motion to vacate the
conditional transfer order. On June 15, 2007 the JPML transferred the case back to the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire. On October 16, 2007, Tyco filed its renewed cross-
motion to dismiss the action.
2007 Financials 33