Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/26/2000 (Other)

Filing Date: June 28, 1996

According to the 10-K filing of Presstek, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 30, in March 2000, the Company entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs in
several class actions lawsuits consolidated under the common caption "Bill
Berke, et al. v. Presstek, Inc., et al." in the United States District Court,
District of New Hampshire to settle the class action lawsuit. The Company also
executed a memorandum of understanding with respect to the settlement of the
derivatives lawsuits, filed on behalf of the Company, one in the Chancery Court
of the State of Delaware and the other in the United States District Court,
District of New Hampshire. Under the terms of the class action settlement, $22.0
million, in the form of 1,245,246 shares of the Company's common stock, will be
paid to the class.

Presstek, Inc. develops and markets non-photographic digital imaging technologies and system architecture primarily to the graphic arts imaging industries. On February 27, 1996, Presstek announced FY1995 results of $27.6 million in revenues, a 67% increase over FY1994, and net income of $2.86 million, a 50% increase. Accountants BDO Seidman gave an unqualified opinion to Presstek's financial statements. Plaintiffs allege that in fact the 1995 audited financial statements did not comply with GAAP in that they grossly overstated the Company's net income. According to plaintiffs, Presstek has three employee Stock Option Plans. Under GAAP, the exercise of an option should not create an earnings benefit, due to related tax benefits, on a corporation's Statement of Operations. Rather, these benefits should be recorded as Paid-in Capital. Plaintiffs claim that defendants in fact improperly recorded stock option exercise tax benefits as a reduction in income taxes. Where the Company recorded a $220,000 provision for income taxes, plaintiffs assert it should have recorded a $1.513 million provision for income taxes. Defendants purportedly made the same accounting mistake in the Company's first quarter 10-Q for 1996, making no provision for income taxes where they should have recorded a $770,000 tax liability. On June 18, 1996, Presstek admitted the mistake in its 10-Q and stated that it would revise net income to reflect the $770,000 in taxes. The complaints also assert that defendants engaged in insider trading and thereby raised a total of $28,379,425 in proceeds during the class period. Based on these allegations, plaintiffs allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Misc. Capital Goods
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PRST
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. New Hampshire
DOCKET #: 96-CV-00347
JUDGE: Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe
DATE FILED: 06/28/1996
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/27/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/17/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kenna, Johnston & Sharkey
    69 Bay Street, Kenna, Johnston & Sharkey, NH 3104
    622.322.2000 ·
  2. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    75 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. New Hampshire
DOCKET #: 96-CV-00347
JUDGE: Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe
DATE FILED: 02/20/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/27/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/17/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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 ·
  2. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    75 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
  3. Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones, NY 10022-6689
    212-759-4600 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date