Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/23/2003 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 11, 2002

According to the docket posted, on September 24, 2002, the Court entered the Order granting the motion for appointment as lead plaintiffs and approved the selection of co-lead counsel. On November 12, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an Consolidated Amended Complaint, and in January 2003, the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 29, 2003, the Court entered the Order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, and the case was closed. On October 23, 2003, the Court entered the Final Judgment dismissing the action, in its entirety, with prejudice.

The original complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market between July 13, 2000 and August 14, 2001. According to the Complaint, Triton's July 13, 2000 Prospectus contained false and misleading statements regarding its sales and revenue. The Prospectus also touted a three year supply agreement with a customer called Advanced Radio Telecom ("ART") representing that this agreement would account for a significant amount of revenue. However, defendants revealed on November 14, 2000, that "a key customer" that had previously been represented in the offering as having a issued "firm purchase orders," had requested that the Company "postpone delivery" of the orders until after it [ART] obtains additional financing." ART filed for bankruptcy on March 30, 2001. Additionally, the complaint alleges that defendants disseminated materially false financial statements for each of Triton's interim quarters during the class period and for the year ended December 31, 2000, which materially overstated the Company's revenues and its net income. Defendants also made a series of other materially false and misleading statements about Triton and its financial condition and performance. The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period, defendants: (a) failed to include in its financial statements, all adjustments, necessary for a "fair presentation" of the financial results in violation of GAAP; (b) applied a non-GAAP accounting method which resulted in a material $2.7 million under-provision for bad debts; (c) failed to write off worthless intangible assets; and (d) failed to recognize a provision for loss and inventory purchase commitments. During the class period Triton's stock experienced a free fall-- plummeting from a high of over $40 per share in July of 2000 to less than $0.60 per share on August 14, 2001. On August 21, 2001, it was reported that Triton decided to close the company and sell its assets, pending shareholder approval.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TNSIE
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: M.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 02-CV-1041
JUDGE: Hon. James D. Whittemore
DATE FILED: 06/11/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/13/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/14/2001
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. 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
COURT: M.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 02-CV-1041
JUDGE: Hon. James D. Whittemore
DATE FILED: 11/12/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/13/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/20/2001
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. 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