Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/16/2007 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: July 16, 2004

According to a press release dated November 15, 2007, the company announced that it reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in the securities law class action litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, In Re Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-1175 (CFD). Under the terms of the agreement in principle, all claims against all of the defendants will be dismissed without presumption or admission of liability or wrongdoing. A one time settlement payment of $1.2 million will be made to the plaintiff class by or on behalf of the defendants. The company has agreed to contribute $135,000 of the $1.2 million settlement. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including negotiation and execution of appropriate settlement documents between the parties, preliminary and final court approval and other factors.

On October 19, 2005, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Christopher F. Droney appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December 23, 2005, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on February 28, 2006. As of August 2, 2007 the judge has not ruled of the pending motions.

The original complaint charges that Flight Safety and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and state common laws by making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the SOCRATES Wake Vortex Detector.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The statements made by the defendants during the class period were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts: (i) the technology behind the proprietary Socrates product had long been in the research and development stage and at no time during the Class Period was there an adequate basis for concluding that the technology was any closer to viability than it had been in the past; (ii) prior tests of the Socrates technology, including the "proof of principle" test conducted by the Volpe Center, a research division of the U.S. Department of Transportation, at the JFK airport in 1998 found that the results of the Socrates were unsuccessful. No subsequent advancement in Socrates technology or related study has demonstrated that the findings in the Volpe report still do not hold true today. It is telling that Congress has funded the Socrates research against the advice of the FAA and NASA; (iii) there is no clea! r demand or market that exists now, or that is foreseeable, for the Socrates technology. Whether there is such a need for such a sensor is still undetermined by the FAA; (iv) even if Socrates had potential to be viable, the product and Company face significant competition from other, better understood sensors; and (v) Socrates is unlikely ever to be a viable commercial product given its unreliability, lack of development progress and competing technologies.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Aerospace & Defense
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FLT
Company Market: American 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: D. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 04-CV-01175
JUDGE: Hon. Christopher F. Droney
DATE FILED: 07/16/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/14/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/16/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  3. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (Former New York Address)
    232 Madison Avenue, Suite 906, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (Former New York Address), NY 10016
    212.686.1060 212.202.3827 · info@rosenlegal.com
  4. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 04-CV-01175
JUDGE: Hon. Christopher F. Droney
DATE FILED: 12/23/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/14/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/16/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  2. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York)
    350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York), NY 10118
    212.686.1060 212.202.3827 · lrosen@rosenlegal.com
  3. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date