Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/12/2002 (Other)

Filing Date: August 28, 2000

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2003, on November 12, 2002, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal and an order dismissing the shareholder class-action suit in its entirety. The dismissal is without prejudice to the rights of individuals to pursue separate claims. Plaintiffs submitted the voluntary dismissal of the action against the Company and its former officers. No consideration was provided by the Company or its former officers, and each side is to bear its own costs.

As reported by the same SEC filing, on April 17, 2001, the Company was served with an Amended and Consolidated Complaint. A hearing on the motion filed by the Company and the two former officers to dismiss the Amended and Consolidated Complaint was held on October 9, 2001. By an order dated January 14, 2002, the Court dismissed the First Amended and Consolidated Complaint without prejudice and granted the plaintiffs sixty days to file a Second Amended and Consolidated Complaint. The plaintiff class filed a Second Amended and Consolidated Complaint on March 15, 2002. On July 16, 2002, the Court granted the plaintiff class’ request to file a Third Amended Complaint that was filed as of the date of the Court’s order.

The original lawsuit alleges that Peerless and certain of its management insiders intentionally participated in a scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price to allow certain critical acquisitions to proceed and preserve Defendants' share holdings. Peerless, purportedly a key provider of software-based embedded imaging
systems to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of digital document
products, (including, for example, printers, copiers, fax machines and
scanners) is alleged by this action to have issued a series of false and
misleading statements during the Class Period that failed to reveal that
business was deteriorating and a conscious and intentional decision was made by management to replace the Company's failing business model without disclosing facts necessary for such action. In truth, as alleged in the complaint, the decision by Peerless to change its business model caused royalty recognition and, thereby revenue, to be misstated as "block royalties" and replaced the payment process previously reported for Peerless. As alleged in the complaint, this conduct disguised the decline of Peerless' business; the Company's chairman, chief executive officer and material chief financial officer have now departed.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Hardware
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PRLS
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. California
DOCKET #: 00-CV-1725
JUDGE: Hon. M. J. Lorenz
DATE FILED: 08/28/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/11/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/25/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
    501 West Broadway, Suit 1250, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, CA 92101
    877.493.5366 619.238.5425 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 00-CV-1725
JUDGE: Hon. M. J. Lorenz
DATE FILED: 07/16/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/11/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/25/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  2. Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
    501 West Broadway, Suit 1250, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, CA 92101
    877.493.5366 619.238.5425 ·
  3. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  4. 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
No Document Title Filing Date