Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/03/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: December 07, 2017

According to the Complaint, OSI purportedly designs and manufactures specialized electronic systems and components. The Company claims that it sells its products and provides related services in diversified markets, including homeland security, healthcare, defense, and aerospace.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that OSI acquired the Albania concession through bribery or other illicit means; (2) that OSI transferred 49% of its project company associated with the Albania concession, S2 Albania SHPK, an entity purportedly worth millions, for consideration of less than $5.00; (3) that OSI engaged in other illegal acts, including improper sales and cash payments to government officials; (4) that these practices caused the Company to be vulnerable to potential civil and criminal liability, and adverse regulatory action; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about OSI’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 1, 2018, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated Complaint on May 4.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Electronic Instruments & Controls
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: OSIS
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 17-CV-08841
JUDGE: Hon. Virginia A. Phillips
DATE FILED: 12/07/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/21/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 17-CV-08841
JUDGE: Hon. Virginia A. Phillips
DATE FILED: 05/04/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/21/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/01/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP (California)
    580 California Street, Suite 1750, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP (California), CA 94104
    415.400.3000 415.400.3000 · info@ktmc.com
  2. Kiesel Law LLP
    8648 Wilshire Blvd, Kiesel Law LLP, CA 90211
    310.854.4444 310.854.0812 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available