Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/18/1999 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 07, 1997

According to the Order and Final Judgment, the case was dismissed on the merits and with prejudice in favor of defendants and against all persons and entities that were members of the Class. More specifically, the Court dismissed the action in favor of defendants and without costs to any of the parties as against any other settling party, except as provided in the stipulation. Plaintiff's counsel was awarded fees of $321,750 (33% of the settlement fund) and a disbursement of $13,008.12 paid from the Settlement Fund.

As reported by the Company’s FORM 10-K For The Year Ended December 31, 1999, on May 3, 1999, the Company and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the class action complaint against the Company and a stipulation has been filed with the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (the Court). The Company has insurance that will cover the claim except for a deductible of $250,000 less attorney fees.

On November 19, 1997, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to be appointed lead plaintiffs and for their counsel to be appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel. On December 23, 1997, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on May 14, 1998, the court denied the Company's request.

The original complaint alleges claims under the federal securities laws for misrepresentations and omissions in connection with sales of the Company's securities. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the registration statement and prospectus is misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) the material trend of increasing losses for Bristol; (ii) that CRI's nine month results1 for the period ended September 30, 1996 were less than half of what they were for the same period in 1995; and (iii) that the combined Bristol and CRI entity lost money for the nine months ended September 30, 1996. The Complaint further alleges 'control person' liability under section 15 of the Securities Act and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants.

Further, the complaint alleges that defendants are liable for (1) issuing a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in violation of § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the 'Securities Act'), 15 U.S.C. § 77k; and (2) fraud in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the 'Exchange Act'), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission ('SEC') Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the registration statement and prospectus is misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) the material trend of increasing losses for Bristol; (ii) that CRI's nine month results1 for the period ended September 30, 1996 were less than half of what they were for the same period in 1995; and (iii) that the combined Bristol and CRI entity lost money for the nine months ended September 30, 1996. The Complaint further alleges 'control person' liability under section 15 of the Securities Act and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. Plaintiffs seek damages, interest, and fees.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BTEC
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 97-CV-5874
JUDGE: Hon. Robert W. Sweet
DATE FILED: 08/07/1997
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/13/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/02/1997
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date