Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/05/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 14, 2002

Pursuant to the Order and Final Judgment by U.S. District Judge Gary L. Taylor, entered on June 9, 2004, the Court approves the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate. The Court further approves the Plan of Allocation.

According to a press release dated March 22, 2004, a Settlement Hearing will be held on June 7, 2004, before the Honorable Gary L. Taylor, at the United States District Court, Central District of California, for the purpose of determining, among other things, whether the proposed settlement of the Litigation for $3,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate.

As reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2004 , from February 14, 2002 to March 15, 2002, five purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and an officer and director of its former subsidiary Silicon Film Technologies, Inc. By stipulated Order dated May 10, 2002, the Court consolidated these actions. Pursuant to the Order, plaintiffs served an amended complaint on July 5, 2002. The amended complaint alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements about the prospects of Silicon Film during the period January 6, 2000 to September 15, 2001, inclusive. The amended complaint asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, and sought damages of an unspecified amount. Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint was September 2002, at which time the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. This motion was heard on May 5, 2003, at which time the Court dismissed the amended complaint, but granted the plaintiffs leave to further amend their complaint within 20 days. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 27, 2003, reasserting the claims made previously, primarily on the basis of purported greater particularity. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 24, 2003. This motion was denied on September 22, 2003, and the defendants filed their answer to the second amended complaint on October 6, 2003, denying all of the substantive allegations of that complaint. The Court established a schedule for discovery related to the second amended complaint, with the hearing of any summary judgment motions resulting therefrom to be heard by May 3, 2004.

The original complaint alleges that ISC and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the Class Period, defendants repeatedly promised the investing community that the EFS-1 was near completion and would be ready for release shortly. These promises never materialized because defendants, knew but did not disclose to the public, among other things, that EFS-1 suffered from serious and insurmountable technical design flaws. On September 15, 2001, after nearly two years of touting the EFS-1 technology, ISC announced that SFI had suspended operations and was considering bankruptcy. The result being the death-knell of the EFS-1 project. Due to defendants' deceptive and illegal conduct, plaintiff and the other class members purchased their ISC securities at inflated prices. Had plaintiff and the other class members been aware of the truthful condition of the Company and the adverse impact that defendants' statements and omissions were having on the Company, they would not have purchased their shares, or at least not at artificially inflated prices.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Aerospace & Defense
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: IRSN
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 02-CV-00159
JUDGE: Hon. Gary L. Taylor
DATE FILED: 02/14/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/06/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/15/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  4. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
  5. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
  6. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
    The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), NY 10126
    212.682.3025 212.682.3010 · info@wyca.com
  7. 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
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 02-CV-00159
JUDGE: Hon. Gary L. Taylor
DATE FILED: 05/27/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/06/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/15/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Allen S Reeves Law Offices
    P O Box 447, Allen S Reeves Law Offices, AL 36702-0447
    334-875-7236 ·
  2. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  3. Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP, NY 10016
    212-682-1818 · info@rabinlaw.com
  4. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
    10940 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 2300, Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), CA 90024
    310.209.2468 ·
  5. 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