Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/31/2008 (Date of order of distribution of settlement)

Filing Date: August 06, 2004

According to the docket, on March 2, 2007 the judge entered an order that despite an apparent tentative agreement to settle, court proceedings will continue for sixty days in the interest of court resources economy. The tentative settlement agreement was said to have been reached during mediation.

On July 25, 2006, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, granting the defendans’ motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. On August 23, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint against the defendants. On September 6, 2006, the Court entered the Order appointing Sandy Greene and Adam R. Klein as lead plaintiffs in substitution for Alan Harvey, Jerry Paul and Elizabeth Paul.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, in January 2006, the Company’s motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated class action complaint was granted and the action was dismissed, with leave to further amend, by the order of the Honorable David O. Carter, United States District Judge for the Central District of California. On March 10, 2006 the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint makes the same allegations regarding violations of the federal securities laws but is limited to an alleged class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock pursuant to or traceable to the public offering of the Company’s stock that closed in March 2004.

The original complaint charges Biolase and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused Biolase's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements. The Company recognized revenue in advance of earning it and failed to record adequate reserves for returns, causing the Company's financial results to be inflated. This inflation was important to the Company as it was able to complete a secondary stock offering of 2.8 million shares in February 2004 at $18.80 per share.

Furthermore, on July 16, 2004, after the markets closed, Biolase reported preliminary results for the second quarter of 2004. On this news, the Company's stock declined to $8.78 on volume of 4.8 million shares. Within two weeks the Company's CFO resigned. According to the complaint, defendants knew that Biolase was not performing nearly as well as represented. The true facts, which defendants knew but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) Waterlase was not gaining market share and demand for the product was not increasing at the rates represented by defendants; (b) Biolase had introduced a lower priced entry level laser which was cannibalizing sales such that Biolase's reported earnings were false and misleading; (c) defendants were concealing this decreasing demand by granting extended payment terms and price breaks; and (d) the Company would not achieve the earnings growth forecasted.

NOTE: Biolase is a medical technology company that designs, manufacturers and markets proprietary dental laser systems that allow dentists, oral surgeons and other specialists to perform a broad range of common dental procedures, including cosmetic applications.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BLTI
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-00947
JUDGE: Hon. David O. Carter
DATE FILED: 08/06/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/29/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/16/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza), NY 10119
    212.279.5050 212.279.3655 · JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com
  2. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  3. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  4. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  5. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  6. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  7. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  8. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  9. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  10. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  11. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  12. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-00947
JUDGE: Hon. David O. Carter
DATE FILED: 08/23/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/29/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/16/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  3. Wechsler Harwood, LLP.
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood, LLP., NY 10022
    212.935.7400 212.753.3630 · info@whesq.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date