Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. - 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

Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. Conclusion: According to the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice entered on December 12, 2002, U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper released, relinquished and discharged all released claims against the released person and terminated the case. Earlier, on November 4, 2002, Judge Cooper granted the final approval the class action settlement, in the amount of $7.9 million, and granted in part and denied in part the motion for awarding the attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses.

The Complaint charges Defendants Turbodyne and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5) by, among other things: issuing false misleading statements regarding Turbodyne's financial condition as well as its present and future business prospects. Turbodyne designs, develops, manufactures and markets proprietary products that enhance performance and reduce emissions of internal combustion engines and manufacture aluminum cast automotive products, including engine components and aftermarket specialty wheels.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3714
Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Auto & Truck Parts

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	TRBD
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.turbodyne.com/

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Takeda, et al. v. Turbodyne Technologies, Inc., et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-697
JUDGE NAME: Judge Margaret M. Morrow
DATE FILED: 01/22/1999	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/01/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/22/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP 501 West Broadway, Suit 1250, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 877.493.5366, (fax) 619.238.5425, Glancy and Binkow 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310-201-9150, (fax) , info@glancylaw.com Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP 830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.317.2300, (fax) , Lionel Z. Glancy 1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 308, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310.201.9150, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/22/1999
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 99-CV-697
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/17/1999

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-697
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Margaret M. Morrow
DATE FILED: 01/23/2001	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/01/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/22/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Third Amended and Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP 501 West Broadway, Suit 1250, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 877.493.5366, (fax) 619.238.5425, Glancy and Binkow 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310-201-9150, (fax) , info@glancylaw.com Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP 830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.317.2300, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Notice Of Pendency And Settlement Of Class Action
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 08/15/2002
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/02/2004

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

�