According to the docket, on September 4, 2002, the Court entered the Judgment and Order of Final Approval granting the motion for the Final Approval of Settlement and Plan of Allocation and granting the motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Reimbursement Awards to Lead Plaintiffs. The Court awarded to Lead Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of 1/3 of the Settlement Fund. The Court awarded to plaintiffs' counsel reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred, including expert fees, in the aggregate amount of $84,779.86, to be paid from the Settlement Fund. The Court further granted Lead Plaintiffs' request for reimbursement in connection with their representation of Class as follows: Dennis Walsingham $4,250, and Richard Joseph $4,000.
By the Notice of Proposed Settlement and of Approval Hearing dated July 10, 2002, a Settlement of the action, for three million seven hundred thousand dollars ($3,700,000) has been reached by the parties. A hearing will be held on September 3, 2002 to consider: (1) whether the proposed Settlement, including the Plan of Allocation, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Litigation should be dismissed on the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement (the “Stipulation”) dated as of June 7, 2000 on file with the Court; and (3) the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses.
The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading public statements which represented that FDA approval of their product was either likely or imminent. The complaint alleges that the Company knew and failed to disclose when it made those statements that its product trials were flawed and that correspondence with the FDA indicated that its product was in fact far from reaching the approval stage. These statements allegedly inflated the Company's stock price. On February 26, 1996, the company's stock price allegedly dropped 41% awhen an FDA review panel voted on not to recommend FDA clearance of the company's monitoring device. Based on these allegations, plaintiffs allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
In May 1996, along with Diasensor.com and current and former individual directors were served with a federal class action lawsuit based on alleged misrepresentations and violations of federal securities laws.