Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/22/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 22, 2000

The original complaint alleges that Saxton and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial results during the Class Period. In particular, it is alleged that the Company's reported financial results during May 15, 1998 and May 15, 2000 which were materially inflated by the capitalization of interest expenses when such expenses should have been capitalized and the premature recognition of revenue. The Complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading statements the price of Saxton common stock was artificially inflated throughout that Period causing plaintiff and the other members of the Class to suffer damages.

On September 10, 2001, the Court entered the Order consolidating the actions and appointing The Komie Group as lead plaintiff and approving the lead plaintiff’s selection of Rabin & Peckel LLP as lead counsel. On October 9, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On April 5, 2002, the Court issued the Order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Judgment was entered and the Consolidated Class Action Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed an appeal, and on January 17, 2006, the Court entered the Judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case was remanded back to the District Court.

On April 20, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On June 5, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On September 22, 2006, the Court entered the Order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, allowing the plaintiffs file an amended complaint within 30 days of the Order. On October 23, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint. On November 22, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

By the Order issued by the Honorable James C. Mahan, on March 20, 2007, the Court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. According to the Order, the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted with prejudice. The Court finds that plaintiffs have failed to plead facts giving rise to strong inference of scienter, and that they have not pled loss causation. On April 20, 2007, the plaintiff filed an appeal.

According to a press release dated August 15, 2007, on July 31, 2007, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint, finding that the plaintiffs failed to assert that the misrepresentations were made in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. The Ninth Circuit noted the plaintiffs could not claim that they did not purchase securities in order to avoid federal jurisdiction.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Construction Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SXTN
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. Nevada
DOCKET #: 00-CV-01521
JUDGE: Hon. James C. Mahan
DATE FILED: 12/22/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/15/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/15/2000
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
COURT: D. Nevada
DOCKET #: 00-CV-01521
JUDGE: Hon. James C. Mahan
DATE FILED: 10/23/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/15/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/14/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright
    801 South Rancho Drive, Quail Park Suite D-4, Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright, NV 89106
    702.384.7111 ·
  2. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
    335 Central Avenue, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence), NY 11559
    516.374.0707 516.295.3473 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  3. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  4. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
  5. 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