Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/09/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 30, 2003

According to the latest docket posted, the settlement was approved, and on June 9, 2005, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. The Court further entered the Orders approving the Plan of Allocation, and awarding lead counsel attorneys' fees of 16.85% of the settlement fund and reimbursement of expenses in an aggregate amount of $113,752.54 with interest.

By the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, dated March 10, 2005, a proposed settlement fund has been established in the amount of $22.6 million and interest. A settlement hearing will be held on May 3, 2005, to determine: (1) whether the settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate to Members of the Class; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds (the “Plan of Allocation”) is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice.

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 numerous positive statements throughout the Class Period regarding the
Company's financial performance. As alleged in the complaint, these statements
were each materially false and misleading when made as they failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were then known
to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (a) that the Company was
failing to timely record an impairment in the value of its accounts
receivables. As a result, the Company's reported financial results were
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period; (b) that the Company was
failing to properly account for its GeneBank(TM) asset, thereby overstating its
reported financial results; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements published during the Class Period were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and were therefore
materially false and misleading. On July 30, 2003, Impath shocked the market when it issued a press release announcing that it had initiated an investigation into possible accounting irregularities involving accounts receivables which the Company believes have been materially overstated and will likely require restatement. Following this announcement, shares of Impath common stock were halted from trading.


Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Healthcare Facilities
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: IMPH
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 03-CV-05667
JUDGE: Hon. Deborah A. Batts
DATE FILED: 07/30/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/29/2003
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
  2. Berger & Montague PC
  3. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
  4. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
  5. Chitwood & Harley LLP
  6. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (New York, NY)
  7. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
  8. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
  9. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
  10. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
  11. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
  12. Seeger Weiss LLP (New York Old Address)
  13. The Emerson Firm
  14. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
  15. Wolf Popper, LLP
  16. Zwerling, Schachter, Zwerling & Koppell LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
No Document Title Filing Date