Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/19/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 27, 2003

According to the docket, on August 31, 2004, a Stipulation of Settlement was filed, and on September 3, 2004, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Ancer L. Haggerty preliminarily approving the settlement. A settlement hearing was scheduled for November 19, 2004. At the hearing, Judge Haggerty issued orders approving the plan of allocation of settlement proceeds and the awarding of attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses. On November 19, 2004, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with prejudice, and the case was closed.

As reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended May 29, 2004, on April 22, 2004, the Company announced an agreement in principle to settle both the class action and derivative actions. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, calls for the payment of $9.3 million, of which approximately $3.8 million will be paid by the Company and approximately $5.5 million will be paid by the Company's insurance carrier.

Between March 26, 2003 and May 20, 2003, three purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against ESI and certain of its former officers and/or directors. The complaints were filed on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased ESI common stock between September 17, 2002 and at the latest April 15, 2003, and alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Act. The complaints have been consolidated under the name In re Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 03-404-HA. Lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for plaintiffs have been appointed. The plaintiffs’ consolidated class action complaint (the Consolidated Complaint) was filed on October 10, 2003, which shortened the purported class to purchasers between September 17, 2002 and March 20, 2003, and added additional defendants. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements during the purported class period about our financial condition and performance, business prospects, and operations, artificially inflating the Company’ stock price and leading to the restatement first announced on March 20, 2003.

The original Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between September 17, 2002 and March 20, 2003, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Electro Scientific securities. The
Complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others: (a) that the Company had reported
artificially inflated financial results for the quarters ended August
31, 2002 and November 30, 2002; (b) that the Company was improperly
accounting for sales, thereby overstating its sales figures and, in
addition thereto, was understating the cost of sales, in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and its own revenue
recognition policies; (c) that the Company lacked adequate internal
controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
condition of the Company; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, it was
not true that the Company's financial statements published during the
Class Period contained "all adjustments ... necessary for a fair
presentation" of the Company's financial position.
On March 20, 2003, after the close of the market, Electro Scientific
issued a press release announcing that it would be restating its
financial statements for the first and second fiscal quarters. In
response to this announcement, the price of Electro Scientific common
stock dropped precipitously falling from $15.17 per share to $12.51 per
share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Electronic Instruments & Controls
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ESIO
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. Oregon
DOCKET #: 03-CV-00404
JUDGE: Hon. Ancer L. Haggerty
DATE FILED: 03/27/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/17/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/20/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 · info@abbeygardy.com
  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. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  4. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  5. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  6. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  7. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  8. 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
  9. Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC

    800-470-6824 312-621-1750 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Oregon
DOCKET #: 03-CV-00404
JUDGE: Hon. Ancer L. Haggerty
DATE FILED: 10/10/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/17/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/20/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  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
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date