Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. ("Flight Safety" or the Company) offers a patented opto-acoustic technology known as SOCRATES and is developing a sensor to detect and track air disturbances known as "wake vortex turbulence," created by departing and arriving aircraft at airports.

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.

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 clear 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.

On October 19, 2005, the Court entered an Order 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.

On December 20, 2007, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement on December 21. On June 3, 2008, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement, including an award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, and entered Final Judgment.

On October 21, 2008, the Court issued an Order approving Distribution of the Settlement.