Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.

Biolase Technology Marketing Plan Cannibalized More Profitable Sales

Report Fraud
Case ID: 3614 | Stocks | 02/23/2006

Several class actions have been filed against dental laser system manufacturer Biolase Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq:BLTI), and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between October 29, 2003, and July 16, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock.

The complaints allege that, during the applicable period, the defendants caused Biolase to recognize revenue in advance of earning it and failed to record adequate reserves for returns, causing the company’s financial results to be inflated. This inflation was vital to the company because it allowed Biolase to complete a secondary stock offering of 2.8 million shares in February 2004 at $18.80 per share.

During the same time period, the defendants allegedly knew that Biolase was not performing nearly as well as represented in its public announcements and SEC filings. The true facts, which the defendants allegedly knew but concealed from the investing public, were:

• The company's Waterlase technology was not gaining market share, and demand for the product was not increasing at the rates represented by the defendants;

• Biolase had introduced a lower-priced entry level laser which was cannibalizing the company's sales of its more expensive technology, making the company’s earnings reports false and misleading;

• The defendants concealed the decreasing demand of its more expensive technology by granting extended payment terms and price breaks to customers; and

• The company would not achieve the earnings growth as forecasted.

On July 16, 2004, after the markets closed, Biolase reported its preliminary results for the second quarter of 2004, revealing its financial difficulties. When the improper accounting was revealed, the company’s stock declined to $8.78 on volume of 4.8 million shares. Within two weeks, the company’s CFO resigned.

If you purchased securities issued by Biolase during the applicable period, you may request appointment by the court as a lead plaintiff if you do so by October 5, 2004. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiffs. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain any counsel of your choice to serve you in this action, or you may choose to do nothing, and remain in the class as a silent member.


At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints.

Other Stocks Cases of Interest

A class action has been filed against Merge Technologies, Inc. (d/b/a Merge Healthcare) (MRGE), certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between August 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock.
 
A class action has been filed against Fidelity Management & Research Company and FMR Company, Inc., on behalf of all shareholders in the Fidelity Contrafund, the Fidelity Growth & Income Fund, the Fidelity Magellan Fund, the Fidelity Blue Chip Growth Fund, and the Fidelity Low-Priced Stock Fund, who allege that the companies have charged them excessive fees for the management of the funds, in violation of federal securities laws.
 
Two class action cases have been filed in San Diego Superior Court against strip mall developer Price Legacy Corporation (Nasdaq: PLRE) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders. The actions claim that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to stockholders in a recent merger with PL Retail LLC. Specifically, the stockholders claim that PL Retail did not pay fair value when it acquired Price Legacy and that Price legacy should have held out for a better price.
 
A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who traded in gold commodities between January 1, 1998 and the present against gold mine operator Barrick Gold Corporation and investment brokerage giant JP Morgan Chase & Co. The suit alleges that JP Morgan Chase and Barrick manipulated the gold market and artificially affected gold prices, to the financial harm of investors.
 
According to a law firm press release, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against NexCen Brands, Inc. on May 28, 2008. The complaint charges NexCen and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NexCen operates as a brand management and franchising company in the United States and internationally. The Company owns, licenses, franchises, and markets a portfolio of brands, including Bill Blass, Waverly, The Athlete’s Foot, Shoebox New York, Great American Cookies, MaggieMoo’s, Marble Slab Creamery, Pretzel Time, and Pretzelmaker.
 
A class action has been filed against DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. (NYSE:DWA), certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between October 27, 2004 and May 10, 2005. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock.
 
Become a LawCash Member - FREE!
'Find Money' E-Book
Weekly Email Alerts




privacy policy
YouNewz Beta
IT'S FREE

Report

Report Newz and easily upload your own newzworthy photos from your cell phone or computer to the web.

Share

Quickly share your photos with family, friends, co-workers, or the world with your own Newzpaper.

Read

Instantly find Newz and photos from other YouNewzers and read other YouNewzers Newzpapers.
 
Class Action Lawsuit Center || Product Recall Center || Consumer Complaint Center || About LawCash Link Exchange
Privacy Policy || Legal Policies || Terms & Conditions || Website Advertising Policy || Site Map || Top Lawsuits
LawCash® is a service of nola3, llc
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.

[ Home ]
LawCash
login
Justice is a click away.