Defendant Name: CVS Caremark Corp.

Defendant Type: Public Company

Document Reference: court_doc2_14-cv-00177

Document Details

Legal Case Name SEC v. CVS Caremark Corp.
Document Name Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief as to Defendant CVS Caremark Corp.
Document Date 08-Apr-2014
Document Format Civil Proceeding
Case Number 14-cv-00177
Federal District Court Rhode Island, District of Rhode Island
Federal District Judge Mary M. Lisi
Allegation Type Issuer Reporting and Disclosure
Document Summary On April 8, 2014, Federal District Judge entered final judgment against CVS Caremark Corp. pursuant to the consent of CVS Caremark Corp.

Related Documents:

comp-pr2014-69 08-Apr-2014 Complaint
Complaint
On April 8, 2014, the SEC filed a complaint against CVS Caremark Corp. The SEC alleged that CVS issued "materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in September and November 2009 regarding the expected results of operations of the PRM [pharmacy benefits manager] line for business of 2010" and inappropriately accounted for "the acquisition of a chain of drugstores, which caused the results of operations for the retail line of business to be materially overstated in the third quarter of 2009."
LR-22968 08-Apr-2014 Litigation Release
SEC Charges CVS with Misleading Investors and Committing Accounting Violations
On April 8, 2014, the SEC announced that it "charged CVS Caremark Corp. with misleading investors about significant financial setbacks and using improper accounting that artificially boosted its financial performance." According to the SEC: "CVS has agreed to pay $20 million to settle the charges."
2014-69 08-Apr-2014 Press Release--Civil Action
SEC Charges CVS With Misleading Investors and Committing Accounting Violations
On April 8, 2014, the SEC announced that it charged CVS Caremark Corp. with misleading investors about significant financial setbacks and using improper accounting that artificially boosted its financial performance. According to the Commission: "CVS fraudulently omitted that it had recently lost significant Medicare Part D and contract revenues in the pharmacy benefits segment."

Related Actions:

In the Matter of Laird Daniels, CPA
Laird Daniels