 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ACT INVENTORY CONFIGURATION PRIOR ACQUISITION MARKET ACT SHARES POOR OPERATING WRITE-OFF AMOUNT WROTE-OFF MOREOVER ACCOUNTING SALES ANALYST RATING EPS SCHRODER EARNINGS RESPONSE CONVERSION PLAN UNCERTAINTY INTEGRATION PROSPECTS DISCOVERY NET INCOME CLASS PERIOD |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SHASHI MIRPURI, individuallv * and )
on behalf of all others j
similarly situated,
1
Plaintiff,
;
V. CA No.
ACT MANUFACTURING, INC., JOHN A. )
PINO, and DOUGLASS C. GREENLAW, )
Defendants. )
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDEML
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs, by their undersigned
action complaint, allege as follows:
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a securities class action
persons, other than defendants and affiliated
described below (the "Class"), who purchased
acquired the common stock of ACT Manufacturing,
the "Company") between April 17, 1997 and March 31,
t'Class Period").
2. ACT provides manufacturing services
equipment manufacturing (OEMS) in the computer,.
telecommunications, medical, and industrial
Company supplies OEMs with printed circuit
-l-
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
CIVIL DOCKET
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANT DOUGLASS GREENLAW MQC COURT MANUFACTURING JOHN PINO ENTRY DISTRICT COURT MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON CIVIL DOCKET DKT SECURITIES VIOLATION ACT MANUFACTURING AMOUNT FEE PAID EXTEND TIME COMPLAINT |
Docket as of March 27, 1998 [retrieved 4/25/98]
Proceedings include all events.
1:98cv10364 Mirpuri v. ACT Manufacturing, et al
U.S. District Court
U.S. District Court - Massachusetts (Boston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 98-CV-10364
Mirpuri v. ACT Manufacturing, et al Filed: 02/27/98
Assigned to: Judge Douglas P. Woodlock Jury demand: Plaintiff
Demand: $0,000 Nature of Suit: 850
Lead Docket: None Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt# in other court: None
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation
SHASHI L. MIRPURI, Peter A. Lagorio
individually and on behalf of [COR LD NTC]
all others similarly situated Gilman & Pastor
Plaintiff One Boston Place
28th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617-589-3749
Edward L Manchur
[COR LD NTC]
Gilman & Pastor
One Boston Place
28th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617-589-3750
v.
ACT MANUFACTURING, INC.
Defendant
JOHN A. PINO
Defendant
DOUGLASS C. GREENLAW
Defendant
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANTS MATERIALS PLAINTIFF MISLEADING CLASS PERIOD VIOLATIONS MEMBERS REPORTING ALLEGES STOCK DAMAGES PRINCIPLE FACTS INVENTORY DISSEMINATION OFFICER CONTROLLING COMPLAINT COMMON STOCK INFLATE OPERATING RECKLESS MANUFACTURING SECURITIES PROPER DIRECTORS KNOWING DISCLOSE FASB STATEMENT |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
SHASHI MIRPURI, individually and on ) Case No. [98-CV-10364]
behalf of all others similarly situated, )))
Plaintiff, ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
) FOR VIOLATION OF THE
v. ) FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
) [filed Feb. 27, 1998]
ACT MANUFACTURING, INC., JOHN A. PINO, )
and DOUGLASS C. GREENLAW, )) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants. ))
_________________________________________)
Plaintiff, by her attorneys, for her Class Action
Complaint (the "Complaint") alleges the following upon personal
knowledge as to herself and her own acts, and upon information
and belief based upon the investigation of plaintiff's attorneys
as to all other matters. The investigation includes the thorough
review and analysis of public statements, publicly-filed
documents of ACT Manufacturing ("ACT" or the "Company"), press
releases, news articles and the review and analysis of accounting
rules and related literature. Plaintiff believes that further
substantial evidentiary support will exist for the allegations
set forth below after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
1. This is a securities class action on behalf of
public investors who purchased the common stock of ACT during the
period from October 1, 1997 through February 25, 1998 (the "Class
Period"). During the Class Period, ACT's financial results, as
reported by defendants, were materially misleading and materially
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
