Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/23/1999 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: November 07, 1997

According to the docket posted on the site, Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal was ordered for the settlement of all charges against TriTeal Corporation and individual defendants on March 23, 1999. On December 3, 1999, a stipulation of settlement was reached with the remaining defendant, Ernst & Young LLP, and the court gave its Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal for that settlement on January 25, 2000. By the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Partial Settlement dated December 3, 1999, the case against Ernst & Young LLP was settled for $1,825,000 in cash.

As reported by the firm's 8-K filing dated 4/07/1999, the Company announced that it has received court approval of the settlement of the class action securities litigation pending against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of the Company's public offering of common stock. Under the settlement, amongst other terms, the plaintiff classes and their attorneys were paid $12 million (of which $10 million was paid by the Company), and the
plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice all claims pending in the actions against
the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters of the Company's public offerings.

The original complaint alleges that during the Class Period, TriTeal and certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters from TriTeal's August 1996
initial public offering, violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions of material fact about the
Company's financial condition and operations. More specifically, the complaint
alleges, inter alia, that defendants artificially inflated the price of the
Company's stock by falsely inflating its revenues and profits by improper
revenue recognition policies in violation of generally accepted accounting
principles and by failing to disclose the substantial problems and the weak
demand for its core products. The motive for the defendants' false and
misleading statements was to enable them to complete a secondary offering of
stock in February 1997, allowing the insiders to reap $15.1 million with the
underwriters pocketing $2.3 million and for certain insiders to sell additional
shares of stock before the truth was disclosed. At the end of the Class
Period, TriTeal reported a substantial loss, which wiped out all the net income
and earnings per share that it had ever reported as a public company, and
several millions of dollars of accounting charges to accurately reflect its
financial results. Defendants' disclosures at the end of the Class Period
caused TriTeal stock to collapse to $4-1/8, a 50% drop in one day, and more
than 80% from its Class Period high of $24-1/4.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TEAL
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. California
DOCKET #: 97-CV-2008
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
DATE FILED: 11/07/1997
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/03/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/02/1997
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2500, Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco), CA 94105
    415.538.3725 ·
  2. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego - former)
    402 West Broadway , Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego - former), CA 92101
    619.230.0800 619.230.1874 · info@barrack.com
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  4. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 97-CV-2008
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
DATE FILED: 03/25/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/07/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/23/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego - former)
    402 West Broadway , Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego - former), CA 92101
    619.230.0800 619.230.1874 · info@barrack.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
No Document Title Filing Date