Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/01/2008 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: April 17, 2007

The original complaint alleges that Cutera and certain officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions assuring the investing public that increased sales efforts and other corporate developments would lead to extraordinary growth in the first quarter of 2007, and for the entire year. Specifically, Cutera asserted on January 31, 2007 that these positive factors would lead to 25% revenue growth for the first quarter of 2007 and for the full year, 33% growth in net income for the first quarter of 2007, and 25% growth in net income for the full year. This announcement was followed shortly thereafter by unusually large stock sales by Cutera's CEO, defendant Kevin P. Connors and Cutera's CFO, defendant Robert J. Santilli. The Complaint alleges that CEO Connors has a history of making stock sales at high prices just prior to the release of adverse corporate news.

The complaint further alleges that on April 5, 2007 defendants shocked the market by announcing that revenues and earnings for the first quarter of 2007 would not increase 25%, as stated just weeks before, but rather would materially decrease. Defendants offered no cogent explanation for this reversal. On this news, Cutera shares dropped $11.72 per share on extraordinary trading volume of 7.2 million shares.

At a hearing held on November 2, 2007, the Court granted the motion to consolidate all related cases under Lead Case C07-02128 VRW. The Court further granted the motion to appoint the Onie group as Lead Plaintiffs and approved Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and Paskowitz & Associates as Lead Counsel. On December 17, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, and on January 31, 2008, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. According to the Order dated September 30, 2008, Plaintiffs have failed to allege with particularity the reasons why defendants’ disclosures were false or misleading and made with the requisite state of mind. The complaint is therefore dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file an amended consolidated complaint that fully comports with Rule 8’s requirement of a “short and plain statement of the claim” within thirty (30) days of the date of this order and alleges that defendants’ forward looking statements were not accompanied by appropriate cautionary language.

On October 28, 2008, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Notice of Intention Not To File Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. On November 26, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as to the order dismissing the action.

According to an article dated July 06, 2010, a federal appeals court has ruled that a lower court was right to toss a securities fraud class action against Cutera Inc. and its top executives over the collapse of the laser skin treatment company's stock in 2007. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit Wednesday.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CUTR
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 07-CV-02128
JUDGE: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker
DATE FILED: 04/17/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/31/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/04/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
    100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
  2. Paskowitz & Associates
    60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, Paskowitz & Associates, NY 10165
    212.685.0969 212.685.2306 · classattorney@aol.com
  3. Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York)
    350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000 , Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York), NY 10118
    · classattorney@pipeline.com
  4. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Walnut Creek)
    2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Walnut Creek), CA 94598
    925.945.0200 925.945.8792 · info@sbtklaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 07-CV-02128
JUDGE: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker
DATE FILED: 12/17/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/31/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/07/2007
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Paskowitz & Associates
    60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, Paskowitz & Associates, NY 10165
    212.685.0969 212.685.2306 · classattorney@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date