Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 05/14/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 12, 2001

On July 11, 2007, the plaintiff gave notice of his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Order Denying Motion for Payment of Damages and Motion to Award Attorneys’ Fees entered on June 13, 2007 and the Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration entered on June 29, 2007.

According to the latest docket posted, on February 24, 2004, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice. The Fairness Hearing was set for May 14, 2004. At the Hearing, Judge Wilken granted the motion for approval of plan of allocation of the settlement proceeds, the application for award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and the motion for final approval of the settlement. The Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal was entered that day.

In a press release dated January 5, 2004, Tut Systems, Inc.
announced that it has reached settlements of the class action securities
lawsuits that subsequently were consolidated. The Company also announced that it
has reached a settlement of the derivative lawsuit entitled Lefkowitz v.
D'Auria, et al., that was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda. Subject to approval by the District Court, Tut Systems has agreed to pay $10 million to settle the consolidated class action lawsuits, which will be paid by the Company's insurance company. Subject to approval by the Superior Court, the derivative lawsuit settlement involves the Company's adoption of certain corporate governance measures and payment of attorneys' fees and expenses to the derivative plaintiff's counsel, which also will be paid by the Company's insurance company. Both settlements include releases of all defendants.

The original complaint charges Tut and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the revenues that Tut was deriving from its sales to small competitive local exchange carriers which were not able to pay for the products purchased from Tut, causing Tut's sales to be inflated and its stock price to be artificially inflated to a Class Period high of $120.37 on 8/29/00. This upsurge in Tut's stock caused by defendants' false and misleading statements enabled the individual defendants to sell 87,100 shares of their Tut stock for proceeds of $8.1 million. By late 11/00, analysts learned that Tut's 4thQ 00 sales would be well below previously forecasted levels, causing the stock to decline. On 11/30/00, Tut revealed to the public that it was in fact suffering a huge decline in revenues, was not posting smaller negative earnings per share growth, and contrary to defendants' repeated assurances, Tut was forced to reveal the problems it had been experiencing during the Class Period in attempting to grow its business. This announcement caused the stock to drop to below $10 per share but the stock continued to trade at artificially inflated levels as defendants concealed the large amount of uncollectible receivables on Tut's books. Then on, 1/31/01, Tut announced huge write-offs of uncollectible accounts receivable and inventory, that its 4thQ 00 revenues had dropped to less than $6 million compared to more than $10 million in the 4thQ 99, and that it was laying off 10% of its workforce. This announcement caused its stock price to drop to as low as $5.84, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to members of the Class.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TUTS
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 01-CV-02659
JUDGE: Hon. Claudia Wilken
DATE FILED: 07/12/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/20/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/31/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Beatie & Osborne LLP
    599 Lexington Avenue, 42nd Floor, Beatie & Osborne LLP, NY 10022
    212.888.9000 212.888.9664 ·
  2. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  3. Bull & Lifshitz
    18 East 41st St., Bull & Lifshitz, NY 10017
    212.213.6222 212.213.9405 ·
  4. Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy
    265 Llwyds Lane, Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy, FL 32963
    561.231.4202 ·
  5. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  6. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 01-CV-02659
JUDGE: Hon. Claudia Wilken
DATE FILED: 09/23/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/20/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/31/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
    100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  3. 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
  4. Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA)
    10940 Wilshire Blvd - 24th Floor, Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA), CA 90024
    310.208.2800 310.209.2348 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date