Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/16/2003 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: November 25, 1998

According to the docket, on August 25, 2003, the remaining defendants filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, and on September 10, 2003, the Court granted preliminary order of approval of settlement and set the settlement fairness hearing for December 10, 2003. On December 16, 2003, the Corut entered the Order and Final Judgment, awarded counsel for lead plaintiffs and other members of the Class 30% of the Gross Settlement Fund and $30,430.99 in reimbursement of expenses, and the appeal was dismissed pursuant to the joint stipulation of the parties.

By the posted Notice regarding settlement, TCPI sought bankruptcy protection in July of 2001. On July 20, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an order staying the appeal pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of Bankruptcy Code 11 U.S.C. §362(a). On September 10, 2002, on joint motion of TCPI and the Plaintiffs, the Court dismissed the appeal against TCPI without prejudice, and ordered that the stay of the appeal be lifted so that the appeal could proceed against the remaining Defendant.

As reported by the Company’s Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2001, during November 1998 through January 1999, several lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida - Case No. 98-7334-CIV-DIMITROULEAS - against us and our former Chairman on behalf of various shareholders alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In general, plaintiffs allege that we and our former Chairman made untrue and misleading statements in our public disclosure documents and in certain press releases, articles and reports. The disclosures relate primarily to the development, clinical testing and viability of our TD Glucose Monitoring System. The plaintiffs sought certification as a class on an unspecified amount of damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On April 19, 1999, an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint was served upon us. On June 18, 1999, we filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

On July 3, 2000, the court dismissed all claims against us and our former
Chairman, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint on or before
July 24, 2000. On July 24, 2000, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On
August 25, 2000, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On
March 20, 2001, the Court issued a Final Order of Dismissal, dismissing with
prejudice the second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs have appealed the
Dismissal Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The original Complaint names TCPI and the Company's Chief Executive Officer as defendants, alleging that these parties violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by originating a series of materially misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's business prospects and the development of a non- invasive transdermal glucose monitoring system (the "Glucose Patch").

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TCPI
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. Florida
DOCKET #: 98-CV-7334
JUDGE: Hon. Edward B. Davis
DATE FILED: 11/25/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/27/1995
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/06/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Burt & Pucillo LLP
    515 North Flagler Drive, Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, Burt & Pucillo LLP, FL 33401
    800.349.4612 ·
  2. Hoffman & Edelson
    45 West Court Street, Hoffman & Edelson, PA 18901-4223
    215.230.8043 ·
  3. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
    335 Central Avenue, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence), NY 11559
    516.374.0707 516.295.3473 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  5. Sheller, Ludwig & Badey
    One Greentree Road, Suite 201 , Sheller, Ludwig & Badey, NJ 08053
    856.988.5590 856.596.8359 · sasheller@sheller.com
  6. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
    The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), NY 10126
    212.682.3025 212.682.3010 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 98-CV-7334
JUDGE: Hon. Edward B. Davis
DATE FILED: 07/24/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/27/1995
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/06/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Burt & Pucillo LLP
    515 North Flagler Drive, Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, Burt & Pucillo LLP, FL 33401
    800.349.4612 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
No Document Title Filing Date