Mitcham Industries - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Mitcham Industries Conclusion: According to Mitcham Industries’ Form 10-K For The Fiscal Year Ended January 31, 2003, on August 10, 2001, facing protracted and expensive litigation, Defendants executed a final settlement agreement with Plaintiffs for $2.7 million, paid by Mitcham ($1.1 million) and its insurance carrier ($1.6 million). On December 10, 2001, the Court approved the settlement agreement, certified the class for settlement purposes only, and entered a Final Judgment and Order dismissing all the class action lawsuits with prejudice.

On October 2, 2000, the Court entered Order by U.S. District Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore granting in part and denying in part two separate motions to dismiss second consolidated amended class action complaint filed by the Underwriter Defendants as well as Mitcham Industries and the Individual Defendants. The case was closed on May 29, 2001. On June 11, 2001, the Court entered the Stipulation of Agreement.

On or about January 15, 1999, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC. On September 28, 1999, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend on certain claims. On December 8, 1999, Plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended complaint ('SCAC'). On December 14, 1999, Plaintiffs served discovery on Defendants. On January 28, 2000, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SCAC. On February 4, 2000, the Court agreed with Defendants that Plaintiffs' discovery was improper because, under the Reform Act, discovery is stayed until the Court sustains the sufficiency of the SCAC. On February 28, 2000, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss, and on March 15, 2000, Defendants filed their reply. Since then no information has been released by the company regarding the status of this case.

On or about April 23, 1998, several class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and its chief executive officer and then chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The first-filed complaint, styled Stanley Moskowitz V. Mitcham Industries, Inc., Billy F. Mitcham, Jr. and Roberto Rios, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. On or about September 21, 1998, the complaints were consolidated into one action. On November 4, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint ('CAC'), which sought class action status on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock from June 4, 1997 through March 26, 1998, and damages in an unspecified amount plus costs and attorney's fees. The CAC alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in public filings and announcements concerning its business and its allowance for doubtful accounts.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7359
Sector: Services
Industry: Rental & Leasing

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Mitcham Industries
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	MIND
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.micham.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Stanley Moskowitz, et al. v. Mitcham Industries, et al.

COURT: S.D. Texas	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-1244
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Ewing Werlein Jr.
DATE FILED: 04/23/1998	SOURCE: Other
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/04/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 03/26/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.983.9330, (fax) 212.983.9331, Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com Hoeffner, Bilek & Eidman 440 Louisiana, suite 720, Houston, TX, 77002-1634 (voice) 713.227.7720, (fax) , Shalov, Stone & Bonner 276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, New York, NY, 10001 (voice) 212.686.8004, (fax) 212.686.8005, lawyer@lawssb.com Spector, Roseman, & Kodroff (San Diego) 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.338.4514, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/23/1998
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 98-CV-1244
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 07/31/1998

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Stanley Moskowitz, et al. v. Mitcham Industries, et al.

COURT: S.D. Texas	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-1244
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Vanessa D. Gilmore
DATE FILED: 12/09/1999	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/04/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 03/26/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended and Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.983.9330, (fax) 212.983.9331, Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com Shalov, Stone & Bonner 276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, New York, NY, 10001 (voice) 212.686.8004, (fax) 212.686.8005, lawyer@lawssb.com Spector, Roseman, & Kodroff (San Diego) 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.338.4514, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/13/2002

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�