Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 02/25/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: May 22, 2003

Pursuant to the Order and Final Judgment dated February 25, 2005, the U.S. District Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich approved the Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and awarded Plaintiffs' Counsel fees and reimbursement of expenses. The case is closed.

In a press release dated June 29, 2004, the parties all reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities litigation, which is currently being formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding. The settlement remains subject to execution of definitive settlement documents by all parties and approval by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The proposed settlement, which totals $7 million, includes a payment of $4 million which would be paid by the carrier of CRYO-CELL's former auditors, subject to its applicable deductible. In addition, CRYO-CELL's insurance carrier would pay $3 million on the Company's behalf under its directors' and officers' insurance policy, subject to its applicable deductible of $175,000, of which the majority has been paid. The settlement does not contemplate any admission of wrongdoing by any of the parties.

The 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 May 16, 1999 and May 20, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Cryo-Cell securities. The Complaint alleges that the Company repeatedly recognized revenue in violation of generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"), including the Company's own
internal accounting principles; maintained worthless assets on its balance sheets as collectible receivables; and failed to disclose related party transactions.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that beginning on March 16, 1999, with the filing of its Form 10-K for fiscal year 1998 (for fiscal year ended November 30, 1998), each and every periodic and annual report filed with the SEC contained materially false financial statements, for at least the following reasons: (i) the Company failed to disclose a related party transaction in connection with its revenue-sharing agreement with defendant Nyberg; (ii) the Company failed to timely write-off the value of receivables from two investors in a revenue-sharing agreement related to the Company's anticipated revenues in New Jersey; and (iii) the Company improperly recognized revenue on several transactions in connection with its granting of licenses to third parties to market the Company's services in areas outside the
United States, including area licenses for Europe, the Middle East/Turkey and Mexico.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CCELE
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 #: 03-CV-1011
JUDGE: Hon. Elizabeth A. Kovachevich
DATE FILED: 05/22/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/16/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/20/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
  2. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
  3. Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL)
  4. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
  5. Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P.
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton)
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  8. The Emerson Firm
  9. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: M.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 03-CV-1011
JUDGE: Hon. Elizabeth A. Kovachevich
DATE FILED: 04/27/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/16/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/27/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
  2. Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL)
  3. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
  4. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
  5. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
  6. Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P.
  7. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
  8. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton)
  9. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  10. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
  11. Vianale & Vianale LLP (former Boca Raton)
  12. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
  13. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date