According to the Form 10-Q For The Quarterly Period Ended December 31, 1999,
CellPro, Inc. made a final distribution of funds to equity holders having received the $1.4 million proceeds from a legal settlement.
By the Order, dated May 19, 1999, U.S. District Judge Thomas S. Zilly approved the settlement with CellPro, Inc. On August 6, 1999, Judge Zilly issued an Order and Final Judgment dismissing the case against CellPro and certain individual defendants with prejudice. Further, on January 24, 2000, Judge Zilly ordered the dismissal with prejudice of another defendant in the action, Lyon & Lyon LLP. On February 4, 2000, Judge Zilly approved the settlement with Lyon & Lyon LLP. The case was closed.
The complaint alleges that CellPro and the other defendants knowingly and/or
recklessly engaged in a course of conduct designed to mislead the investing
public in order to maintain the price of CellPro common stock at artificially
high levels throughout the Class Period. It also alleges that defendants continually issued to the investing public false and misleading statements and representations concerning CellPro's products, intellectual property, and the most basic premises underlying the way CellPro intended to and did operate its business.
Specifically, the complaint charges CellPro and certain of its officers, directors and its attorneys with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued false statements concerning the most basic premises underlying the way CellPro intended to and did operate its business, including a series of false statements issued by defendants about CellPro's willful infringement on patents owned by Johns Hopkins University. The complaint further alleges that CellPro and the other defendants disseminated their false statements during the Class Period in order to mislead the investing public in order to maintain the price of CellPro common stock at artificially high levels, causing the price of CellPro common stock to trade over $20 per share in early 1996.
Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that on July 28, 1997, CellPro's stock dropped to $3.50 per share upon widespread dissemination of a scathing court order issued by Judge McKelvie of the United States District Court in Delaware which ordered CellPro to pay $6.9 million in damages because CellPro was found to have willfully infringed on the Johns Hopkins patents and also ordered injunctive relief whereby CellPro has to pay 60% of its incremental profits to Baxter Corp., Becton Dickinson & Co. and Johns Hopkins University.