Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/06/2006 (Other)

Filing Date: October 11, 2005

On August 15, 2006, a Stipulation of Dismissal was filed. The plaintiffs agreed to withdraw this action. On September 6, 2006, the Court entered the Stipulation and Order of Dismissal by Judge Brian M. Cogan. The action was dismissed pursuant to Rule 41, without costs or attorney's fees, and the case was closed.

The Complaint charges Lipman and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements caused Lipman's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Lipman maintains its principal corporate offices at Rosh Haayin, Israel, and engages in the development, manufacture, marketing and sale of electronic payment systems and solutions worldwide. The Complaint alleges that defendants issued public statements which fraudulently created a false impression concerning the Company's business operations and prospects following the acquisition of Dione, Plc ("Dione"), a United Kingdom-based supplier of "smart card" payment systems. Defendants claimed that the Dione acquisition would add to Lipman's earnings within one year and "provide important new customer relationships that would add critical mass to our U.K. presences."

During the Class Period, defendants touted the Dione acquisition, claiming it would provide "important new customer relationships" and enable the Company to penetrate new markets, among other things. Defendants' public statements, however, misled the public concerning Lipman's ability to leverage purported "operational and technological synergies that exist between the two companies." The Complaint alleges defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclosed that the Dione acquisition would not provide an immediate boost to Lipman's earnings or easily establish the Company's presence in the United Kingdom and other European countries. Instead, defendants' statements misled Lipman shareholders and artificially inflated the Company's stock price. Additionally during the Class Period, defendants' materially misleading statements and omissions enabled to Company to complete a secondary offering of 1,973,044 shares at $29.75 per share in May 2005.

The Complaint further alleges that on or around September 28, 2005, less than one year after completing the Dione acquisition, Lipman made a stunning admission that the "weaker than expected performance of Dione" caused the Company to slash its 2005 earnings estimates, from a previous forecast of $1.39 to $1.42 per share, down to $0.88 to $0.98 per share. The Company also announced that it had terminated the employment of Dione CEO Shaun Gray and that the Company anticipated it would take a non-cash impairment charge relating to goodwill and other intangible assets in 2005.

Investor reaction was sharply negative to this news, causing Lipman's share price to plunge nearly 22 percent following the disclosure of the Company's inability to leverage the Dione acquisition to expand Lipman's European market presence.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Office Equipment
Headquarters: Israel

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LPMA
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: E.D. New York
DOCKET #: 05-CV-04788
JUDGE: Hon. John Gleeson
DATE FILED: 10/11/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/04/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/27/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (NY)
    1501 Broadway, Suite 1416, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (NY), NY 10036
    917.510.000 646.366-089 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. Law Office of Jacob Sabo
    The Tower No. 3 Daniel Frisch Street, Law Office of Jacob Sabo 64731
    01197236078888 011 972 3 607 88 89 · sabolaw@inter.net.il
  4. 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
  5. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  6. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  7. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date