Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/02/1999 (Other)

Filing Date: January 28, 1999

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 1999, at the January 29, 1999 Annual Meeting of the Company's shareholders, the shareholders authorized the Company's Board of Directors to carry out the reverse stock split at any time before April 1, 1999. Due to increases in the price of the Company's common stock as quoted on The Nasdaq SmallCap Market, the Board determined to forgo the reverse stock split and allowed its authority to execute the stock split to expire unexercised on April 1, 1999. In view of that development, the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit agreed to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and without any further cost to the Company. Based on this agreement, on July 29, 1999, Judge Rosenbaum dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice and without costs to either party. Thus, this matter has been concluded.

The class action complaint charges Destron issued a proxy statement containing false and misleading statements about Destron shareholders' ability to exercise dissenters' rights in connection with their voting on Destron's proposed reverse stock split. The complaint also alleges that Destron's acts have damaged shareholders and that the false and misleading statements contained in the proxy statement violate the federal securities laws. Destron's president and CEO is also named in the suit.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DFCO
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 99-CV-00137
JUDGE: Hon. James M. Rosenbaum
DATE FILED: 01/28/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/29/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/28/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P.
    Suite 301, 660 Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., DC 20003-4335
    202.544.9840 202.544.9850 ·
  2. Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law
    E-1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law, MN 55101
    800.465.1592 651.297.6543 · info@ralawfirm.com
No Document Title Filing Date