Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/09/2004 (Other)

Filing Date: July 23, 2004

On October 19, 2004, the plaintiff voluntarily moved to dismiss the action without prejudice. On November 9, 2004, the Court entered the Order dismissing the case.

According to a press release dated July 22, 2004, the complaint charges Reynolds, Lloyd G. Waterhouse, and Dale L. Medford with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that market demand for the Company's cutting edge products, such as Reynolds Generation Series, was lackluster; (2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's strategy for growth was seriously flawed as the Company was forced to expend additional resources to pitch new products to unwilling customers, while neglecting the marketing of its more conventional revenue-producing products; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and their earnings projections.

On June 24, 2004, Reynolds announced that it anticipated revenues and earnings would be lower than its previous estimates when the Company reported results for its third fiscal quarter on July 21, 2004. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Reynolds fell $7.28 per share or 23.81 percent, on June 25, 2004, to close at $23.30 per share. On July 7, 2004, Reynolds announced that CEO, Chairman and President Lloyd 'Buzz' Waterhouse had resigned from the Company and its board of directors, effective immediately. On the news shares of Reynolds plummeted further. Shares of Reynolds fell a further $.83 per share or 3.63 percent, on July 7, 2004, to close at $22.12 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Networks
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: REY
Company Market: New York SE
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. Ohio
DOCKET #: 04-CV-00475
JUDGE: Hon. Sandra S. Beckwith
DATE FILED: 07/23/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/22/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/24/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brian Felgoise
  2. Bull & Lifshitz
  3. Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co. LPA
  4. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  5. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  6. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  7. Smith & Smith LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available