Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/31/2001 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 09, 1998

According to the firm's 10-Q filing dated 10/17/2001, the District Court has certified a class for settlement purposes only, and has approved the settlement.

As summarized by the firm's 10-Q filing dated 8/14/2001, on or about December 11, 1998, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of our common stock during the period from and including September 30, 1997 through July 15, 1998: Fitzer v. Security Dynamics Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 98-CV-12496-WGY. The plaintiffs subsequently dismissed without prejudice the claims against Ms. Saris. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants misled the investing public concerning demand for our products, the strengths of our technologies, and certain trends in our business and sought unspecified damages, interest, costs and fees of their attorneys, accountants and experts. On September 28, 2000, the United States District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and entered a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. On October 18, 2000, the plaintiffs filed in the District Court a notice of appeal from the judgment. After the notice of appeal was filed, the defendants made a motion to the District Court to modify the judgment of dismissal, and to add certain material to the record on appeal. The District Court denied the defendants’ motion, and defendants’ appeal from the denial of the motion was consolidated with the plaintiffs’ appeal. The parties have agreed to settle the case, subject to court approval.

The original complaint charges SDTI and certain officers and directors of the Company during the relevant time period with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the demand for SDTI's core products, the strength of its technologies and its competitiveness and the trends in its business. Because of the issuance of a series of false and misleading statements, the price of SDTI common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Peripherals
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SDTI
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. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 98-CV-12496
JUDGE: Hon. William G. Young
DATE FILED: 12/09/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/30/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/15/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law
    E-1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law, MN 55101
    800.465.1592 651.297.6543 · info@ralawfirm.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 98-CV-12496
JUDGE: Hon. William G. Young
DATE FILED: 06/01/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/30/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/15/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  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
  4. Moulton & Gans LLP
    133 Federal Street, Moulton & Gans LLP, MA 2110
    617.369.7979 ·
No Document Title Filing Date