Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/27/2001 (Other)

Filing Date: November 26, 1997

According to a Press Release dated December 3, 2001, in or about December 1997, plaintiffs commenced class actions against HealthTech and certain executive officers and as well as the Company' auditors, Smith, Dance & Co. ('Smith Dance'). The actions were consolidated and an amended complaint was filed in or about October 1998 (the 'Complaint'). The Complaint alleged, inter alia, that defendants HealthTech and certain of its officers and directors (the 'Individual Defendants') as well as Smith Dance violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 'Exchange Act') and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition, the Complaint alleged that the Individual Defendants, as control persons, violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Finally, the Complaint alleged state law violations against both the HealthTech and Smith Dance defendants. From inception, a key individual defendant, the chief executive officer and chairman of the board of HealthTech was absent from this litigation. He was arrested around the time of the first filed complaints for violating, inter alia, federal securities laws and eventually sentenced to seven years imprisonment in the Fall of 1999. However, a restitution order, entered in connection with the criminal matter against defendant Hall, may provide some HealthTech shareholders relief. If you fall into the class period covered by the government's action, you likely would have been contacted directly by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. In addition, defendants HealthTech and Smith Dance filed for protection under the bankruptcy laws of the United States on July 21, 1999 and November 11, 1999, respectively. Neither HealthTech nor Smith Dance carried Directors & Officers Liability insurance or its equivalent. During this period, plaintiffs entered into settlement negotiations with defendants, including defendant Hall. The parties were assisted in their efforts by a magistrate judge appointed by the Court. However, these efforts failed once they proved that any result would yield little economic benefit to the Class. During the period of settlement negotiations, HealthTech's bankruptcy petition was dismissed, but after its only viable asset was foreclosed upon (over plaintiffs' objections) leaving no equity for the Class or the Company. Smith Dance seeks liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. This action is still pending in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (No. 00-33060 HCA). Other individual defendants attested that they were judgment proof. Finally, efforts to relist securities of HealthTech were rejected by the responsible regulatory authorities. Given these and other events, lead plaintiffs' moved on November 16, 2001 for an order of voluntary dismissal. Plaintiffs' motion was granted and the court ordered it so on November 19, 2001. The Court's order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) provide that, absent objection, the action will be dismissed without prejudice on December 21, 2001.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Recreational Products
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: GYMM
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. Arizona
DOCKET #: 97-CV-02447
JUDGE: Hon. Roslyn O. Silver
DATE FILED: 11/26/1997
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/06/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/25/1997
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 · info@abbeygardy.com
  2. Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix)
    4041 N. Cental Avenue, Suite 1100, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix), AZ 85012-3311
    602.274.1100 ·
  3. Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP
    1 Renaissance SQ; 2 N Central Ave, Quarles & Brady Streich Lang LLP, AZ 85004-2391
    602.229.5200 ·
  4. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Arizona
DOCKET #: 97-CV-2447
JUDGE: Hon. Roslyn O. Silver
DATE FILED: 10/08/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/28/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/17/1997
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 · info@abbeygardy.com
  2. Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix)
    4041 N. Cental Avenue, Suite 1100, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix), AZ 85012-3311
    602.274.1100 ·
  3. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
  4. Wechsler, Harwood, Halebian & Feffer, LLP
    488 Madison Avenue, Wechsler, Harwood, Halebian & Feffer, LLP, NY
    212.935.7400 10022 ·
No Document Title Filing Date