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

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.

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.

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.

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

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