Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 07/09/2003 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: May 24, 2000

According to the docket, on March 17, 2003, the Court entered the Order granting the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. A settlement fairness hearing was set for July 1, 2002. The fairness hearing was held, and on July 9, 2003, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment signed by U.S. District Judge David G. Larimer. The settlement was approved and the case was closed.

By the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, the settlement fund was in the amount of $1,000,000 in cash.

In a press release dated September 25, 2002, Performance Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq NM: PTIX), a global supplier of innovative communication and networking equipment, today announced it has signed a Memorandum of Understanding for settlement of the class action litigation filed against the Company and a number of its directors and officers in May 2000. On and after May 24, 2000, multiple class action lawsuits were filed against the Corporation, as well as several of its officers and directors. Those lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one action. The terms of the settlement outlined in the memorandum between the Company and the class action plaintiffs are being submitted to the Court in the form of a settlement agreement. This proposed settlement will be subject to Court acceptance and approval. Although the Company had modest Director and Officer insurance coverage, the charge to Company's earnings related to this agreement will be less than$150,000. This charge will be recorded in the Company's third quarter 2002 operating period.

The original complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by providing materially false and misleading information about the Company's financial condition and future growth. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on April 26, 2000, the Company reported seemingly positive financial results for the first quarter of 1999, creating the impression that substantial growth would continue. However, the statement was false when made because the defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that a significant shipment to a customer was delayed and two large orders were decreased for the second quarter. As a result of these false and misleading statements the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period. When the truth about the Company was revealed, the price of the stock dropped significantly.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Electronic Instruments & Controls
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PTIX
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: W.D. New York
DOCKET #: 00-CV-6240
JUDGE: Hon. David G. Larimer
DATE FILED: 05/24/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/02/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/19/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA)
    225 Broadway, Suite 1900, Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92010
    619.702.7350 619.702.7351 ·
  2. Chamberlain D'Amanda Oppenheimer & Greenfield
    1600 Crossroads Office Building, Two State Street, Chamberlain D'Amanda Oppenheimer & Greenfield, NY 14614
    716.232.3730 315.422.6958 ·
  3. Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 204, Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    888.337.6663 · Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com
  4. 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
  5. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  6. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
  7. 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: W.D. New York
DOCKET #: 00-CV-6240
JUDGE: Hon. David G. Larimer
DATE FILED: 03/19/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/02/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/19/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 · info@abbeygardy.com
  2. Chamberlain D'Amanda Oppenheimer & Greenfield
    1600 Crossroads Office Building, Two State Street, Chamberlain D'Amanda Oppenheimer & Greenfield, NY 14614
    716.232.3730 315.422.6958 ·
  3. 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 ·
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date