Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 05/23/2003 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 03, 1998

According to a news article dated February 3, 2004, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and then agreed to drop their appeal as part of a settlement. Settlement terms: payment of $280,000 cash to the Class (roughly $0.12 per share before the deduction of attorneys’ fees and expenses); payment of approximately $60,000 in expenses to plaintiffs’ counsel (plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to waive all attorneys’ fees under the circumstances).

As reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2003, subsequent to the parties entering into the settlement agreement, the Company's insurance carrier commenced liquidation proceedings. The insurance carrier informed the Company that in light of the liquidation proceedings, it would no longer fund the settlement. In addition, the value of the insurance policy is in serious doubt. In April 2002, the Company and the insurance carrier for the underwriters offered to proceed with the settlement. Plaintiffs' counsel accepted the terms of the proposed settlement, amounting to $175,000 for the Company, which was previously accrued. . The settlement has been approved by the Court and by the shareholders comprising the class, and the Company paid the settlement in June of 2003.

Earlier, according to the same SEC filing, upon a motion made on behalf of the
Company, the Court dismissed the shareholder action, without prejudice, allowing
the complaint to be refiled. The shareholder action was subsequently refiled,
asserting substantially the same claims as in the prior pleading. The Company
again moved to dismiss the complaint. By Opinion and Order dated September 28,
2000, the Court dismissed the action, this time with prejudice, thereby barring
plaintiffs from any further amendments to their complaint and directing that the
case be closed. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals and the parties submitted their briefs. Subsequently, the parties
notified the Court of Appeals that they had reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the outstanding appeal and settle the case upon terms and conditions
which require submission to the District Court for approval. Upon application of
the parties and in order to facilitate the parties' pursuit of settlement, the
Court of Appeals issued an Order dated May 18, 2001 adjourning oral argument on
the appeal and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings
in connection with the proposed settlement.

In August 1998, the Company, its Directors, and certain underwriters were
named as defendants in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey by certain shareholders, purportedly on behalf of a
class of shareholders, alleging that the defendants, during the period April 30,
1998 through June 12, 1998, violated various provisions of the federal
securities laws in connection with an offering of 2,500,000 shares of the
Company's Common Stock. The complaint alleged that the Company's offering
documents were materially incomplete, and as a result misleading, and that the
purported class members purchased the Company's Common Stock at artificially
inflated prices and were damaged thereby.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Electronic Instruments & Controls
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ULBI
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 Jersey
DOCKET #: 98-CV-03619
JUDGE: Hon. Maryanne T. Barry
DATE FILED: 08/03/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/30/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/12/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA)
    701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA), WA 98014
    206.521.0080 206.521.0166 · lawinfo@cmht.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 98-CV-03619
JUDGE: Hon. Maryanne T. Barry
DATE FILED: 11/08/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/30/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/12/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC (Newark)
    Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC (Newark), NJ 07102-5003
    973.623.3000 ·
No Document Title Filing Date