Mobility Electronics, Inc. ("Mobility" or the Company) designs and manufactures custom electronic controls.
The original Complaint charges Mobility and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly represented that it expected Mobility to earn $15 million in revenues for the fourth quarter of 2003, which was attributable in large part to the Company's agreement with Fellowes, Inc. whereby Fellowes would globally market and distribute a line of Fellowes-branded power products from Mobility, as well as custom products based on Mobility's market-leading combination AC/DC technology, through its vast worldwide distribution network, encompassing nearly 30,000 retail stores (the "Fellowes Agreement"). In truth and in fact, however, unbeknownst to investors, by the start of the Class Period, Fellowes was not meeting its sales forecasts and, accordingly, Mobility was not generating the revenues and earnings it had anticipated from the Fellowes Agreement. Prior to disclosing these adverse facts to the investing public, Mobility completed a $15 million private placement, purchased assets from InVision Software and InVision Wireless using its artificially inflated stock as currency and Mobility insiders unloaded more than $6 million of their personally held shares to the unsuspecting public. Then, on January 5, 2004, Mobility shocked the market when it announced that it expects revenue for the fourth quarter of 2003 to be approximately $1.0 million to $1.3 million less than the Company's previous guidance of about $15 million.
On May 4, 2004, the Court entered the Order by Judge Earl H. Carroll granting the motion to consolidate the cases, granting the motion to appoint the Tishman Group as lead Plaintiffs, and granting the motion to approve lead and liaison Counsel. On July 9, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The Defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on September 7, 2004.
Before a ruling on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, on November 9, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal of the action without prejudice. The case is closed.
