Company and Case Information

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


DT Industries, Inc.
Summary: According to the Company’s FORM 10-K For The Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2002, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the Second Complaint, with prejudice, on July 16, 2002. Pursuant to the Court's dismissal order, all defendants were dismissed and a judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs did not appeal the Court's decision, so the Court's dismissal order is final and non-appealable, and the plaintiffs can neither further amend their complaint nor submit a new complaint in connection with the above-referenced restatements.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, during fiscal 2001, five complaints in putative class action lawsuits were consolidated into a single class action styled In re DT Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation and an amended complaint was filed (the "Securities Action") adding the Company’s Sencorp subsidiary and certain additional officers and directors as defendants. As of the end of fiscal 2002, the Securities Action was pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (the "Court"). The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserted causes of action under Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleged, among other things, that the accounting adjustments caused the Company’s previously issued financial statements to be materially false and misleading. The Consolidated Amended Complaint also sought damages in an unspecified amount and was purported to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during various periods, all of which fall between September 29, 1997 and August 23, 2000. On October 4, 2001, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the Securities Action, without prejudice. Pursuant to the Court's dismissal order, all defendants were dismissed, but the plaintiffs were granted the right to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on January 25, 2002 (the "Second Complaint"), thereby reviving the Securities Action. On March 11, 2002, DTI and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Complaint.

The original action seeks damages for violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased DTI common stock between September 29, 1997 and August 23, 2000 (the “Class Period”). The complaint alleges DTI and certain of its current and former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On August 23, 2000, DTI disclosed that its independent auditors had requested additional time in order to continue its investigation into overstatements of certain asset accounts at DTI’s wholly-owned subsidiary Kalish, Inc. The Company further advised that “the discrepancies are likely to be material and could impact previously reported earnings for the 1997, 1998 and 1999 fiscal years, and for the fiscal quarters during those years and during fiscal year 2000.” In addition, the Company stated that it had placed the senior financial officer of Kalish on administrative leave and had accepted the resignation of the Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration of DTI. As a result of these revelations, NASDAQ halted trading in DTI stock.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3559
Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Misc. Capital Goods


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: DT Industries, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: DTII
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.dtindustries.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Kevin S. Tracy, et al. v. DT Industries, Inc., et al.
 COURT: W.D. Missouri  DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-03369
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Dean Whipple
 DATE FILED: 09/01/2000  SOURCE: Business Wires
 CLASS PERIOD START: 09/29/1997  CLASS PERIOD END: 08/23/2000
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
  • Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
      One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109
       (voice) 617.542.8300, (fax) 617.230.0903, info@bermanesq.com
  • Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA)
      225 Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92010
       (voice) 619.702.7350, (fax) 619.702.7351,
  • Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
      3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
       (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com
  • Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103
       (voice) 215.496.0300, (fax) 215.496.6611,
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  4

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 09/01/2000

    REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    In Re: DT Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation
     COURT: W.D. Missouri  DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-03369
     JUDGE NAME: Hon. Dean Whipple
     DATE FILED: 01/25/2002  SOURCE: Business Wires
     CLASS PERIOD START: 09/29/1997  CLASS PERIOD END: 08/23/2000
     TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended and Consolidated
     PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Berger & Montague PC
      1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103
       (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net
  • Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP
      One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109
       (voice) (617) 542-8300, (fax) ,
  • Brodsky & Smith, LLC
      11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
       (voice) 610.668.7987., (fax) 610.660.0450, esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  • Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates (Boca Raton, FL)
      2255 Glades Road Suite 421A, Boca Raton, FL, 33431
       (voice) 561.750.3000, (fax) ,
  • Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy
      265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach La, FL, 32963
       (voice) 561.231.4202, (fax) ,
  • Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
      World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202
       (voice) 410.332.0030, (fax) , pivenlaw@erols.com
  • Mark McNair
      1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC, 20006
       (voice) 703.273.3070, (fax) , wmmcnair@justice4investors.com
  • Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
      3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
       (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com
  • Weinstein, Kitchenoff, Scarlato & Goldman
      1608 Walnut Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, PA, 19103
       (voice) 215.545.7200, (fax) 215.545.6535, info@wksg.com
  • Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
      270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016
       (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  10

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 03/30/2001
    Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint
    Type: Motion Date on the document: 10/05/2001
    Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 01/25/2002
    Order
    Type: Order Date on the document: 07/16/2002
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 07/17/2002

     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