American Bank Note Holographics, 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

American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. Conclusion: According to the Memorandum and Order entered on January 4, 2001, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon approved the class action settlement and awarded Plaintiffs’ Counsel fees and reimbursement expenses from the Settlement Fund. Earlier, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment on December 19, 2000, finding the Settlement fair and reasonable. The Plaintiffs’ Counsel was awarded fees in the amount of 25% of the Gross Settlement Fund and the Settlement Securities and $280,830.17 in reimbursement of expenses with interest. The case was closed. In the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, the Company’s insurance carrier and Former Parent paid $12,500,000 and Deloitte & Touche LLP paid $2,350,000. In addition, ABNH issued and distributed 1,460,000 shares of our common stock, of which 365,000 shares were issued and distributed in February 2001 and the remaining 1,095,000 shares were issued and distributed in May 2002. The Company also issued and distributed warrants to purchase 863,647 shares of common stock, at an exercise price of $6.00 per share.

The original Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with, among other things, their dissemination of a materially false and misleading Registration Statement, press releases, public statements and other materials concerning ABH's business, financial condition, and financial results for fiscal years 1996 through 1998. The Complaint further alleges that ABH improperly recognized revenue during these periods in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and, as a result, must restate its financial results for these periods. In this regard, on January 19, 1999, ABH announced that it will restate its financial results for its second and third fiscal quarters ended June 30, 1998 and September 30, 1998, respectively. The Company further announced that its Audit Committee has retained special legal counsel and Deloitte & Touche, LLP, its auditors, to investigate certain transactions during the second and third quarters of 1998 which resulted in the inappropriate recognition of revenue causing the overstatement of the Company's revenues, sales, and net income. Also, on January 25, 1999, the Company further announced that its financial statements for the first three quarters of 1998 would have to be restated, and that net income for the years 1996 and 1997 was overstated by approximately 10%. The price of ABH common stock closed at $15-1/16 per share on January 15, 1999. After ABH made its stunning announcements, trading of its stock was halted at $3 per share on January 25, 1999, a loss in excess of 75%.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3999
Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Misc. Fabricated Products

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	American Bank Note
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	ABHH
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.abnh.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Beatrice Levy, et al. v. American Bank Note H, et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-00432
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Colleen McMahon
DATE FILED: 01/19/1999	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/14/1998	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/19/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco) 595 Market Street, Suite 2500, San Francisco, CA, 94105 (voice) 415.538.3725, (fax) , Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (New York) 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516ven (voice) 212.661.1100, (fax) 212.661.8665, info@pomerantzlaw.com/ Wechsler Harwood LLP 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.935.7400, (fax) , info@whhf.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Docket
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 12/01/1999

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In re American Bank Note Holographics,Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-00412
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Colleen McMahon
DATE FILED: 05/12/1999	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/15/1998	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/01/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP 299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY, 10171 (voice) 212.894.7200, (fax) 212.894.7272, info@entwistle-law.com Lowey, Dannenberg, Bemporad & Selinger, P.C. 1 North Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor, White Plains, NY, 10601-1714 (voice) 914.997.0500, (fax) 914.997.0035, ldbs@wesetnet.com Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com Wolf Popper, LLP 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022-6689Ave (voice) 877.370.7703, (fax) 212.486.2093, IRRep@wolfpopper.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/18/2000
Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/20/2000
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 07/23/2002

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

�