According to the docket, on February 5, 2004, the Court entered the Judgment by U.S. District Court Robert P. Patterson, pursuant to FRCP 54(b). The Court finds the settlement as fair and the complaint and all judgments filed are dismissed with prejudice and without costs. The Plan of Allocation is approved and the plaintiff’s counsel are awarded $90,000 in reimbursement of expenses.
In a press release dated December 31, 2003, the securities class action against Gaming Lottery Corp., pending in the S.D.N.Y. since 1996, has been preliminarily settled for $1 million (or about 7 cents per damaged share before the deduction of litigation expenses). Plaintiffs allege that the company engaged in misrepresentations concerning its acquisition and operation of Special Manufacturing Inc. In the spirit of the holiday season, the notice of proposed settlement states that plaintiffs' counsel have declined to apply for any attorneys' fees.
A similar, purported class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 27, 1996, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Carolyn R. Dimmick, and the case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of plaintiffs and all other persons or entities who purchased the securities of defendant Gaming Lottery Corporation ("Gaming Lottery" or the "Company"), or its predecessor, Laser Friendly, Inc., during the period from June 8, 1995 through May 24, 1996, inclusive (the "Class Period"), to recover damages caused to the Class by defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. Defendants engaged in a plan and scheme to tout the business and prospects of Gaming Lottery by repeatedly publicizing its business plan and other claims whereby Gaming Lottery would become a major player in the paper-based lottery supply business. Beginning in late 1994, Laser Friendly commenced an aggressive acquisition program of suppliers of gaming and lottery cards, to the government and charity lotteries. The defendants repeatedly touted their acquisitions of lottery supply businesses, representing that their acquisitions of lottery supply businesses, representing that their plan to make Gaming Lottery into a $100 million business was proceeding according to schedule.