Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/10/1998 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: October 08, 1996

In December 1997, Identix, Inc. and its officers reached an agreement with plaintiffs and their counsel to settle the lawsuit. The settlement was approved by the United States District Court, following notice to the class members, and the lawsuit was dismissed on March 6, 1998.

Identix, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets biometric personal identity and verification systems for security applications and products for law enforcement that scan, analyze and transmit fingerprint images. The analysis of these images is employed by commercial users for physical and data access control, time and attendance measurement and employee background checks. The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its officers and directors made, and failed to correct, materially false statements regarding the company's net income and revenue. In particular, the complaint alleges that the company violated generally accepted accounting principles by failing to disclose material overstatements of revenue. As an example of the improper revenue recognition, the complaint cites a large transaction between the company and a customer whereby the company allegedly recognized revenue on products which it had not yet shipped to the customer. The complaint alleges that the false and misleading statements were part of a scheme by the defendants to inflate artificially the price of the stock.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Peripherals
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: IDX
Company Market: American SE
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 97-CV-20082
JUDGE: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
DATE FILED: 10/08/1996
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/31/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/26/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Hagens Berman, LLP
    1301 Fifth Avenue Suite 2900, Hagens Berman, LLP, WA 98101
    206.623.7292 · info@hagens-berman.com
  2. Kaufman Malchman Kirby & Squire, LLP
    919 Third Ave 11th Flr, Kaufman Malchman Kirby & Squire, LLP, NY 10022
    212.371.6600 ·
  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
No Document Title Filing Date