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

Class Action Filed Against Lipman Electronic Engineering, Ltd.

Report Fraud
Case ID: 4484 | Stocks | 10/18/2005

A class action has been filed against Lipman Electronic Engineering, Ltd. (LPMA), certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between October 4, 2004 and September 27, 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.

According to a press release dated October 11, 2005, 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.

If you bought Lipman Electronic Engineering, Ltd. securities between October 4, 2004 and September 27, 2005, inclusive, and would like to obtain information about the Lipman Electronic Engineering, Ltd. lawsuit, then you are invited to call (866) 467-1400 to speak with an attorney.


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 clearing broker Bear Stearns & Company, Inc. by stockholders who purchased ML Direct, Inc. securities from Sterling Foster & Company during the approximately three-and-a-half months that followed ML Direct's December 2001 IPO. The action claims that the Bear Stearns violated federal securities laws by facilitating Sterling Foster's alleged fraudulent short selling scheme involving the IPO securities.
 
According to a law firm press release dated 5/22/2008, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund against American International Group, Inc.
 
A class action has been filed against Westar Energy, Inc. by employees alleging that the company violated its fiduciary duty to employees by mismanaging their 401(k) accounts, resulting in massive losses in the value of the accounts.
 
A class action has been filed against 51job, Inc. (NASDAQ: JOBS), a China based recruitment and human resource services company and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between November 4th, 2004 and January 14th, 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.
 
The class has been certified in several consolidated actions filed against Ahsanti Goldfields, Ltd., on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company’s Global Depository Receipts in transactions on stock exchanges in the US between April 21, 1997, and October 5, 1999. 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.
 
On September 15, 2005 the Court dismissed several class actions that had been filed against computer hardware manufacturer Merix Corporation (Nasdaq:MERX) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between July 1, 2003, and May 13, 2004. The actions claimed 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.
 
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.