Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 02/27/2008 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: December 06, 2005

A press release dated on July 14, 2008 stated that FARO Technologies, Inc. has settled for $6,875,000 due to its securities fraud class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District Court of Florida. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Judge Anne C. Conway, of United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, at 9:00 a.m., on October 3, 2008, to determine whether the proposed settlement and the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, to consider the application of plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and to consider the application for reimbursement of expenses of the lead plaintiff

According to a press release dated February 26, 2008, FARO Technologies, Inc., the world market leader in portable computer-aided measurement arms and laser tracker sales, announced that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the consolidated class action securities fraud lawsuit pending against FARO and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Securities Litigation"). Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, which is subject to certain conditions, the issuer of the Company's directors and officers insurance policy will pay $6.875 million into a settlement fund that will be distributed to members of a class of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from April 15, 2004 through March 15, 2006 and to the lead plaintiff's counsel and also will be used to pay various costs. The Memorandum of Understanding provides that the parties to the Securities Litigation will file with the court a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement seeking the court's preliminary and final approval of the terms of the proposed settlement. If the Court approves the settlement, a judgment will be entered dismissing the Securities Litigation, with prejudice, as against each defendant.

On September 18, 2007, the Court issued the Order adopting the August 7, 2007 Report and Recommendation. According to the Order, the FARO Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on May 11, 2007, is denied. Defendant Grant Thornton LLP’s Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint With Prejudice, filed on May 11, 2007, is granted.

In a press release dated August 8, 2007, FARO Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:FARO), the world market leader in portable computer-aided measurement arms and laser tracker sales, announced that a U.S. Magistrate judge for the Middle District of Florida issued a Report and Recommendation to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to enter an order denying FARO's and certain FARO officer's Motion to Dismiss the second amended consolidated securities class action complaint filed against FARO and certain FARO officers. The U.S. District Court has not yet ruled on the Report and Recommendation or the Motion to Dismiss.

On February 22, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

In a press release dated February 8, 2007, FARO Technologies, Inc., the world market leader in portable computer-aided measurement arms and laser tracker sales, announced that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has dismissed a class - action securities fraud complaint filed against the Company, with leave to file an amended complaint. … On January 12, 2007, an U.S. magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed, as against all defendants, with leave to re-plead. As to FARO and the individual defendants, the Report and Recommendation primarily was based on the magistrate judge's findings that the Complaint failed to adequately allege: (i) scienter (i.e., intentionally fraudulent or severely reckless conduct) with respect to certain claims; and (ii) that certain supposed misrepresentations or omissions actually caused economic loss. On February 3, 2007, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation, and set a February 22, 2007 deadline for the plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint to attempt to state claims "in a fashion sufficient to establish each claim".

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, om December 6, 2005, the first of four essentially identical class action securities fraud lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain officers of the Company. On April 19, 2006, the four lawsuits were consolidated, and Kornitzer Capital Management, Inc. was appointed as the lead plaintiff. On May 16, 2006, Kornitzer filed its Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against the Company and the individual defendants. The amended complaint also names Grant Thornton LLP, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, as an additional defendant. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on July 31, 2006. On August 30, 2006, Kornitzer filed its memorandum in opposition to the Company’s Motion to Dismiss. On September 15, 2006, the parties’ counsel presented oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss to the court. The court has not ruled on the Motion to Dismiss.

The original Complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements. Specifically, FARO repeatedly issued false and misleading quarterly and annualized financial guidance throughout the Class Period knowing of the deficient and defective state of one or more of its controls and systems, with an adverse impact on its inventory accounting, order fulfillment and financial statements. It is further alleged that even though defendants quietly placed a resource management system into operation, defendants continued to conceal their deficient and defective controls and practices, causing the newly implemented system to supply false and erroneous information to the Company's departments and functions, with a continued direct, adverse impact on order fulfillment and corporate earnings.

The complaint further alleges that on or around November 3, 2005, FARO announced its third quarter of 2005 financial results. The results revealed that FARO had incurred a pre-tax $1.6 million adjustment cost for inventory costing and consumption variances related to the implementation of a new enterprise resource planning ("ERP") system and that FARO had not met growth targets. On this news, the price of FARO stock plummeted $5.88, from its closing price of $22.38 on November 3, 2005, to finally close on November 7, 2005, at $16.50, for a two-day loss of 26.38%.

FARO engages in the design, development, marketing, and support of portable, software-driven, 3D measurement systems for a range of manufacturing and industrial applications.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Scientific & Technical Instr.
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FARO
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: M.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 05-CV-01810
JUDGE: Hon. Anne C. Conway
DATE FILED: 12/06/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/06/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/03/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4699 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  2. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  3. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  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. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton)
    5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33486
    561.361.5000 561.367.8400 ·
  6. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.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. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  9. Wechsler Harwood, LLP.
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood, LLP., NY 10022
    212.935.7400 212.753.3630 · info@whesq.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: M.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 05-CV-01810
JUDGE: Hon. Anne C. Conway
DATE FILED: 02/22/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/15/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/15/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4699 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. 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
  4. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  5. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  6. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
    35 East State Street, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, PA 19063
    877.891.9880 · jshah@classactioncounsel.com
  7. Vianale & Vianale LLP (former Boca Raton)
    The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town Center Road., Vianale & Vianale LLP (former Boca Raton), FL 33486
    561.391.4900 561.368.9274 · info@vianalelaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date