Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/18/2004 (Other)

Filing Date: May 10, 2002

According to the Company’s FORM 10-KSB For The Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2004, in July of 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled in our favor in the appeal of the United States District Court decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in the proceeding entitled IN RE: COMPUTERIZED THERMAL IMAGING, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION. The Ninth Circuit decision upheld the determination of the District Court to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint because it failed to adequately plead a case. On April 17, 2003, the consolidated litigation was dismissed without prejudice by the United States District Court. In a written opinion, the U.S. District Judge concluded that the alleged misstatements were either not material, not misleading, or not plead by plaintiffs with sufficient particularity to constitute a claim. Upon dismissal of their complaint, the plaintiffs did not replead, so the District Judge dismissed the case with prejudice on May 13, 2003.

In a Press Release dated April 23, 2003, Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. (CTI) announced that the class action litigation against the Company alleging violations of the securities act was dismissed without prejudice by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on April 17, 2003. In his written opinion, U.S. District Judge Garr M. King concluded that the statements made by the Company, which plaintiff's alleged were misleading to investors, were either not material, not misleading, or not plead by plaintiffs with sufficient particularity to constitute a claim. The Court gave plaintiffs 21 days to re-plead three of the nine claims if the plaintiffs have additional facts. Judge King's opinion does not allow plaintiffs to re-plead the remaining claims.

The original Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5). The action arises from damages incurred by the Class as a result of a scheme and common course of conduct by defendants which operated as a fraud and deceit on the Class during the Class Period. CTI designs, manufactures and markets thermal imaging devices and services used for clinical diagnosis, pain management and industrial non-destructive testing. Their flagship product, a Breast Cancer Detection System (``BCD System''), is currently under review by the FDA. As alleged in the Complaint, CTI admitted that during the Class Period, the Company's ex-President and Chief Operating Officer, David Packer, consistently made representations to the Board, the shareholders of CTI and the public about the status and timing of submissions to the FDA, which were false and misleading at the time they were made and which placed the ultimate approval of the BCD System in jeopardy. As further alleged, due to defendants' deceptive and illegal conduct, plaintiff and the other class members purchased their CTI securities at inflated prices and were damaged thereby.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CIO
Company Market: American 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: D. Oregon
DOCKET #: 02-CV-00611
JUDGE: Hon. Garr M. King
DATE FILED: 05/10/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/11/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/21/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
    P.O. Box 25438, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR), AR 72221-5438
    501.312.8500 501.312.8505 ·
  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. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  4. Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Schlachter
    209 South West Oak Street, Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Schlachter, OR 97204
    503.227.1600 503.227.6840 · info@ssbls.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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Oregon
DOCKET #: 02-CV-00611
JUDGE: Hon. Garr M. King
DATE FILED: 11/05/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/11/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/21/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Braun Law Group, P.C. (Former)
    12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 920, Braun Law Group, P.C. (Former), CA 90025
    888.658.7100 · info@braunlawgroup.com
  2. 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
No Document Title Filing Date