Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/31/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 04, 2004

On January 15, 2009, a mandate was ordered by the appellate magistrate affirming the appellate opinion and judgment entered on November 26, 2008.

On November 26, 2008, an appellate opinion was entered in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On September 29, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal which is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 27, 2006, the Court entered the Order denying the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the August 31, 2006 order granting defendants' motion to dismiss.

By the Order dated January 24, 2006, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs must file any amended complaint within 30 days of the filing of the order. On February 22, 2006, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. On March 27, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint, and on August 31, 2006, the Court entered the Order and Judgment granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The civil case was terminated.

The original Complaint alleges that InVision, and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false statements concerning the Company's business condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts: (i) that InVision's foreign distributors were engaging in questionable and potentially illegal activities; (ii) that its foreign distributors made improper payments in connection with foreign sales activities, which were in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; (iii) that InVision improperly accounted for the funds used in these payments; and (iv) that as a result, InVision's improper accounting for such payments allowed InVision to enter into a definitive merger agreement with General Electric Company.

On July 30, 2004, InVision announced that it had met with the Department of Justice and the SEC concerning its voluntary disclosure of an internal investigation of certain possible offers of improper payments by distributors in connection with foreign sales activities. On this news, shares of InVision fell $6.39 or 12.87% per share to close at $43.27 on August 2, 2004.

Note: InVision Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of computed tomography ('CT') based detection products used by the aviation industry to screen baggage.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Security Systems & Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: INVN
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-3181
JUDGE: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 08/04/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/15/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/30/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 · info@abbeygardy.com
  2. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  3. 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
  4. Green & Jigarjian LLP
    235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, Green & Jigarjian LLP, CA 94104
    415.477.6700 415.477.6710 ·
  5. Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
    830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP, NY 10022
    212.317.2300 ·
  6. 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
  7. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  8. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-3181
JUDGE: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 02/22/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/15/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/30/2004
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. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (SF)
    455 Market Street, Suite 1810, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (SF), CA 94105
    415.972.81 415.972-816 · info@glancylaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date