Signalife, Inc. Summary: The original class action was filed against Signalife, Inc., which claims to research, develop and market wireless heart monitoring devices in the United States. The complaint alleges that Signalife (formerly known as Recom Managed Systems, Inc. and before that, Mt. Olympus Enterprises, Inc.), violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff alleges that Signalife issued false positive statements about the Company's ability to manufacture and market its Fidelity 100 Monitor System, a supposedly wireless heart monitoring device. Despite years of highly positive statements about its heart monitor, Signalife has had virtually no sales, and the Company has never had a product that was commerciallyviable. As a result, Signalife's stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. Signalife's stock dropped on April 11, 2008 on unprecedented volume of 3,752,100 shares, when the truth came to light that Signalife's Fidelity 100 monitor system was unsalable. The Company recently announced its imminent delisting from AMEX, and its stock price has slumped to 6 cents.
On November 20, 2009, the Honorable R. Bryan Harwell signed the Order consolidating several related actions, granted the motion to appoint the Taylor Signalife Investment Group as lead plaintiff and further approved lead plaintiff’s selection of Scott & Scott LLP as lead counsel. On December 10, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint adding two individuals as named defendants. The defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on February 11, 2009. On February 24, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On August 25, 2009, the motions to dismiss were taken under advisement.
On September 4, 2009, the motions were granted in part and denied in part. According to the Order, signed by Judge R. Bryan Harwell. The Court orders this entire matter stayed until after the Supreme Court publishes its decision in Merck. At that time, any party to this action may move this Court to lift the stay, and if necessary, also move to reconsider based upon any change of law made by the Merck decision.
On October 8, 2009, one of the newly named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
On December 23, 2009, the motion to dismiss was stayed. According to a Text Order filed on May 11, 2010, the Court has been advised that the Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the Merck case. Therefore, the stay of the within case is hereby lifted, including the stay relating to Defendant Drakulic's pending motion to dismiss.
On March 7, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for hearing in connection with settlement proceedings. The proposed settlement will settle claims with the defendants for $4 million in cash. On June 29, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. On July 13, 2011, the pending motions for class certification, for settlement, and for attorney's fees and expenses were approved.
SIC Code: 3845
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies
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