Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/17/2001 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 23, 1998

According to Mitcham Industries’ Form 10-K For The Fiscal Year Ended January 31, 2003, on August 10, 2001, facing protracted and expensive litigation, Defendants executed a final settlement agreement with Plaintiffs for $2.7 million, paid by Mitcham ($1.1 million) and its insurance carrier ($1.6 million). On December 10, 2001, the Court approved the settlement agreement, certified the class for settlement purposes only, and entered a Final Judgment and Order dismissing all the class action lawsuits with prejudice.

On October 2, 2000, the Court entered Order by U.S. District Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore granting in part and denying in part two separate motions to dismiss second consolidated amended class action complaint filed by the Underwriter Defendants as well as Mitcham Industries and the Individual Defendants. The case was closed on May 29, 2001. On June 11, 2001, the Court entered the Stipulation of Agreement.

On or about January 15, 1999, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC. On September 28, 1999, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted Plaintiffs leave to amend on certain claims. On December 8, 1999, Plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended complaint ('SCAC'). On December 14, 1999, Plaintiffs served discovery on Defendants. On January 28, 2000, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SCAC. On February 4, 2000, the Court agreed with Defendants that Plaintiffs' discovery was improper because, under the Reform Act, discovery is stayed until the Court sustains the sufficiency of the SCAC. On February 28, 2000, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants' motions to dismiss, and on March 15, 2000, Defendants filed their reply. Since then no information has been released by the company regarding the status of this case.

On or about April 23, 1998, several class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and its chief executive officer and then chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The first-filed complaint, styled Stanley Moskowitz V. Mitcham Industries, Inc., Billy F. Mitcham, Jr. and Roberto Rios, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. On or about September 21, 1998, the complaints were consolidated into one action. On November 4, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint ('CAC'), which sought class action status on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock from June 4, 1997 through March 26, 1998, and damages in an unspecified amount plus costs and attorney's fees. The CAC alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in public filings and announcements concerning its business and its allowance for doubtful accounts.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Rental & Leasing
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MIND
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: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 98-CV-1244
JUDGE: Hon. Ewing Werlein Jr.
DATE FILED: 04/23/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/04/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/26/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  2. Hoeffner, Bilek & Eidman
    440 Louisiana, suite 720, Hoeffner, Bilek & Eidman, TX 77002-1634
    713.227.7720 ·
  3. Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP
    276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, NY 10001
    212.686.8004 212.686.8005 · lawyer@lawssb.com
  4. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
    1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego), PA 19103
    215.496.0300 215.496.6611 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 98-CV-1244
JUDGE: Hon. Ewing Werlein Jr.
DATE FILED: 12/09/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/04/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/26/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  2. Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP
    276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, NY 10001
    212.686.8004 212.686.8005 · lawyer@lawssb.com
  3. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
    1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego), PA 19103
    215.496.0300 215.496.6611 ·
No Document Title Filing Date