Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/15/2006 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: May 30, 2003

According to the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal, entered on July 21, 2005, and signed by U.S. District Judge Paul N. Brown, the settlement is approved and the action is dismissed with prejudice. That same day, the Court further entered Orders approving the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds and awarding lead plaintiffs’ counsel’s fees and reimbursement of expenses.

By the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action dated March 17, 2005, a settlement hearing will be held on July 20, 2005. The purpose of the Settlement Hearing will be to determine: (1) whether the settlement consisting of $6,000,000 in cash plus accrued interest should be approved as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate to each of the parties; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds (the “Plan of Allocation”) is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application by Plaintiffs’ Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved and the expenses of Lead Plaintiffs reimbursed; and (4) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice.

According to the same Notice, on June 3, 2003, Daisytek International Corporation filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and on October 16, 2003 the Litigation as against Daisytek was severed and stayed.

The original complaint charges Daisytek and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising out of defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operating performance and prospects. Specifically, defendants were improperly accounting for uncollectible customer accounts receivables and vendor rebates receivables to inflate the Company's results. Due to Daisytek's favorable reported results, defendants were able to secure financing essential to the Company. The Company subsequently disclosed it would record "significant" write-downs of customer and vendor receivables and inventory and large restructuring charges. On this news, the Company's stock dropped to $0.53. The Company subsequently announced the resignation of its CEO and its CFO.


Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Office Supplies
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: DZTK
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: E.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 03-CV-0212
JUDGE: Hon. Paul N. Brown
DATE FILED: 05/30/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/28/2003
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
  2. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
  3. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  4. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
  5. Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P.
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton)
  7. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
  8. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  9. The Emerson Firm
  10. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: E.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 03-CV-0212
JUDGE: Hon. Paul N. Brown
DATE FILED: 02/06/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/28/2003
  1. Hoeffner & Bilek, LLP
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
  4. Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, LLP (Dallas )
  5. Susman, Godfrey LLP (Dallas)
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date