BALA CYNWYD, Pa., Dec. 6, 2001 (PRIMEZONE) -- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announced today that it recently filed lawsuits on behalf of shareholders of Tidel Technologies, Inc., Apropos Technology, Inc., Predictive Systems, Inc. and Transmeta Corporation for violations of the federal securities laws.
If you purchased the securities of any of the companies listed below during the respective class periods, you may be a member of the class and have until the date specified to move the court to become the lead plaintiff. For more information on a particular lawsuit and to view the complaint, you may visit our Website at www.sbclasslaw.com. To learn more about your rights and interests in these cases and your ability to potentially recoup your losses, please contact Schiffrin & Barroway directly at 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221, fax number 610-822-0002 or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.
TIDEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Nasdaq:ATMS) (Class Period: 04/06/00 - 02/08/01) The complaint charges Tidel Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Tidel falsely touted its sales of automated teller machines, or ATMs, at a "record" pace. These materially false and misleading statements allowed the Company to begin trading on the Nasdaq national trading system, which would have been impossible without the Company's false and misleading statements and the consequent artificial inflation of the Company's stock price. When Tidel finally disclosed that its largest customer's orders would be at "substantially reduced levels for the quarter ending March 31, 200l," Tidel's stock price declined precipitously. The lawsuit alleges that Tidel knew during the time period but did not disclose that its largest customer was in the process of switching to a competitor and reducing orders.
The claims asserted arise under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Named as defendants in the suit are Tidel; James T. Rash, Tidel's Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chairman of Tidel's Board of Directors; Mark K. Levenick, Tidel's Chief Operating Officer and a Director of Tidel; James L. Britton III, a Director of Tidel; and Jerrell G. Clay, a Director of Tidel. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The lead plaintiff motion must be filed no later than December 30, 2001.
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY, INC. (Nasdaq:APRS) (Class Period: 02/17/00 - 05/15/00). The complaint charges Apropos Technology, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus for the February 17, 2000 offering falsely stated that co-founders Patrick K. Brady and William W. Bach were active members of its executive management team when they had stopped playing important roles within the company months before the prospectus was issued. Named as defendants are the company, its top directors and the underwriters who helped take it public.
The prospectus listed Brady as chief technology officer and Bach as vice president of technology. But Apropos President and CEO Kevin G. Kerns had effectively ousted Brady after a power struggle that culminated in July 1999. Though Brady maintained his title, he no longer had a company office or any employees who reported to him. Similarly, Kerns stripped Bach of his executive managerial responsibilities and involvement in shaping the company's core technology.
Kerns, who became the de-facto CTO, attempted to hire a replacement for Brady before the prospectus was issued, but was unsuccessful. So, Brady and Bach were listed in the prospectus as technology officers. Apropos issued nearly 4 million shares of common stock at $22 per share to thousands of investors based on offering materials that falsely stated that the founders who designed its key technological product were managing the company.
"As a technology company whose business plan and future success depended heavily on proprietary technology, investors considered it important that the Apropos founders -- the people who developed and patented that proprietary technology -- still believed in the company, its business and its technology," the complaint says. "Plaintiffs and the other class members have lost tens of millions of dollars as a result of these material misrepresentations and omissions in the prospectus." The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lead plaintiff motion must be filed no later than December 31, 2001.
PREDICTIVE SYSTEMS, INC. (Nasdaq:PRDS) (Class Period: 10/27/99 - 12/06/00). The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about October 27, 1999, Predictive commenced an initial public offering of 4,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $18 per share (the "Predictive IPO"). Subsequently, on March 30, 2000, Predictive made a public offering of 3,800,000 shares (the "Predictive Secondary Offering"). In connection with each offering, Predictive filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus (collectively, the "Prospectuses"), with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectuses were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the Underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Predictive shares issued in connection with the Predictive IPO and the Predictive Secondary Offering; and (ii) the Underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriters agreed to allocate Predictive shares to those customers in the Predictive IPO and the Predictive Secondary Offering in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Predictive shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY. The lead plaintiff motion must be filed no later than January 15, 2002.
TRANSMETA CORPORATION (Nasdaq:TMTA) (Class Period: 11/06/00 - 12/06/00). The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about November 6, 2000, Transmeta commenced an initial public offering of 13,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $21 per share (the "Transmeta IPO"). In connection therewith, Transmeta filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus (the "Prospectus"), with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the Underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Transmeta shares issued in connection with the Transmeta IPO; and (ii) the Underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriters agreed to allocate Transmeta shares to those customers in the Transmeta IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Transmeta shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The lead plaintiff motion must be filed no later than January 15, 2002.
More information on these and other class actions can be found on the Class Action Newsline at www.primezone.com/ca.