Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/02/2001 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 20, 2001

According to the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock on November 1, 2001, the plaintiff, with the agreement of the parties, will file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The matter is dismissed without costs and without prejudice. The case is closed.

The class action charges certain officers and directors of Advanced Technical San with issuing false and misleading financial statements and news releases about the company's earnings and related party transactions. According to the complaint, the company failed to disclose transactions that should have been made public under both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations. The transactions at issue were improper related party transactions.

In a number of filings with the SEC, the company revealed that its auditors, Ernst & Young, resigned because it was ``no longer willing to accept managements representations'' and that defendant Boxall had ``falsified documents and misrepresented past events'' concerning the company. Advanced Deposition filed for bankruptcy court protection on April 13, 2001. The Nasdaq Stock Market has suspended trading of Advanced Deposition.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Scientific & Technical Instr.
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ADTCQ
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. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 01-CV-11255
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 07/20/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/28/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/04/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. (New York, Former Office)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. (New York, Former Office), NY 10016
    212.686.1060 212.202.3827 · info@rosenlegal.com
No Document Title Filing Date