Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 02/26/2002 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 09, 1998

As reported by the the Company’s FORM 10-KSB/A For The Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2003, in February 2001, the Company reached an out-of-court settlement, which the Court approved in May 2001. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company and the other defendants agreed to pay $595,000 to the plaintiffs, $380,000 of which was paid by the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance carrier and $215,000 of which was paid by the Company.

Further, according to the same SEC filing, in April 2001, prior to the entry of the final order approving the settlement of the Purported Class Action (the "Class Action Final Order"), the Company commenced separate legal proceedings against Arthur Andersen, LLP ("Andersen"), its former auditor, in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New London, Connecticut (the "Malpractice Proceedings"). The Malpractice Proceedings sought damages sustained by the Company as a result of Andersen's failure to comply with professional standards in the conduct of certain of its audits of the Company's financial statements. In May 2001, Andersen removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, but the court remanded the complaint to the state court upon the motion of the Company. The Company asserted in the Malpractice Proceedings that Andersen breached its duties to the Company by, among other things, negligently and/or intentionally misrepresenting the Company's true financial condition tothe Company, its Board of Directors and its Audit Committee. Andersen vigorously denied any wrongdoing and filed a counterclaim against the Company alleging claims for fraud, negligence, breach of contract, interpleader and indemnification. In addition, Andersen asserted that the Class Action Final Order interposed an effective bar against any recovery in the Malpractice Proceedings. On June 7, 2001, the Company filed a motion to amend the Class Action Final Order to clarify that it has no application to the Malpractice Proceedings. The court granted the Company's motion, and Andersen appealed the court's decision. In February 2003, the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second District entered an Order Voluntarily Dismissing that appeal with Prejudice.

On August 12, 1998, a second purported class action was filed against the Company and certain individuals asserting similar claims under the federal securities laws. The second action also was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and purports to be brought on behalf of the named plaintiff Mr. Mark Abrams for the same class period. On January 4, 1999, the Court consolidated the two actions into one. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on May 28, 1999. On December 17, 1999, the plaintiffs requested leave to file a second amended and consolidated complaint. On May 1, 2000, the Court granted the plaintiffs leave to serve that second amended and consolidated complaint.

The first filing charged the Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, and its Vice President and Chief Financial Officer with violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") by concealing accounting irregularities which resulted in overstatements of the Company's earnings during the Class Period.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Office Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SORT
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. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 98-CV-1311
JUDGE: Hon. Robert N. Chatigny
DATE FILED: 07/09/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/14/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/23/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  2. 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: D. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 98-CV-1311
JUDGE: Hon. Robert N. Chatigny
DATE FILED: 12/17/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/14/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/23/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  2. 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