Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/14/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 18, 2001

As reported by the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 30, 2004, in January 2004, the Company entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuits, without admitting any of the allegations against the Company or its officers, and agreed to pay $7.0 million for the dismissal of all claims, which is within the Company’s insurance coverage limits and has been agreed to by the Company’s insurance carriers. On June 10, 2004, the court agreed to the settlement and issued a final order dismissing the case with prejudice.

Earlier, according to the same SEC filing, several class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of the Company’s current officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, commencing in April 2001. The lawsuits were consolidated into one class action lawsuit on August 16, 2001, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 1, 2002. In the consolidated complaint the plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that during the financial periods that were restated, the Company made materially false and misleading statements about the status and effectiveness of a management information and accounting system used by the Company’s components division and costs associated with that system, failed to assure that the system maintained books and records accurately reflecting inventory levels and costs of goods sold, failed to maintain internal controls on manual accounting entries made to certain inventory-related accounts in an effort to correct the data in the system, otherwise engaged in improper accounting practices that overstated earnings, and issued materially false and misleading financial statements. The plaintiffs further alleged that the individual defendants traded in the Company’s common stock while in possession of material, non-public information regarding the foregoing. The plaintiffs in the consolidated complaint asserted various claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interest and costs, including legal fees. On March 15, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint and a memorandum in support.

The origianl class action complaint alleges NCI and two of its former top officers with knowingly or recklessly engaging in improper accounting practices that forced the company to restate its financial statements for the fiscal year that ended October 31, 2000, and for the quarter that ended January 31, 2001. In addition, the company said that those same "accounting errors" could result in changes to financial statements for the third and fourth quarters of 1999. The complaint further alleges that NCI said that a computer system installed in May of 1999 routinely processaed some accounting entries incorrectly - and that employees later altered the company's books manually to mask the errors made by the automated system. The company says it fired the employees responsible for the accounting irregularities.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NCS
Company Market: New York SE
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. Texas
DOCKET #: 01-CV-01280
JUDGE: Hon. Melinda Harmon
DATE FILED: 04/18/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/23/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/12/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
    One Liberty Square, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), MA 2109
    617.542.8300 617.230.0903 · info@bermanesq.com
  3. 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 ·
  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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 01-CV-01280
JUDGE: Hon. Melinda Harmon
DATE FILED: 04/16/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/23/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/12/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego)
    12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Hoeffner, Bilek & Eidman
    440 Louisiana, suite 720, Hoeffner, Bilek & Eidman, TX 77002-1634
    713.227.7720 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date