Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 02/14/2000 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 24, 1998

According to the docket, on October 4, 2000, U.S. District Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley granted the motion for settlement distribution. Earlier, on February 17, 2000, the case was ordered closed soon after the February 14, 2000, Final Judgment and Bar Order, adopting the report and recommendation by Magistrate Linnea R. Johnson to grant final approval to the settlement and certify the class action. The Plaintiffs' Counsel was awarded Attorneys' Fees of $255,000, which represents 30% of the Settlement Amount, plus interest from entry of such order, and Expenses of $46,534.43, plus interest. According to Saf T Lok’s Form 10-QSB-A for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2000 as Amended March 26, 2001, settlement of the case was $850,000 payment to the plaintiffs, paid by the Company's insurer.

The original complaint charges Saf T Lok and certain officers and directors of the Company during the Class Period with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for misrepresenting material information concerning Saf T Lok's financial condition, including the efficacy of a product development agreement announced on May 26, 1998 with Semiconductor Laser International Corp. ("SLIC") to produce a laser enhanced fingerprint recognition gun locking mechanism (the "SLIC Development Agreement").

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Auto & Truck Parts
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LOCK
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: OTC

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. Florida
DOCKET #: 98-CV-8507
JUDGE: Hon. Daniel T. K. Hurley
DATE FILED: 07/24/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/26/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/11/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  2. 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. Florida
DOCKET #: 98-CV-8507
JUDGE: Hon. Daniel T. K. Hurley
DATE FILED: 04/05/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/26/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/11/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  2. 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