Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : ACTM $100 Million Cable Modem Contract with MOT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jeffbas who wrote (562)	3/5/1998 5:16:00 PM
From: Rob Preuss	Respond to of 1250

The following message was sent to me by LPasko, a (former) class action attorney that I ran across on another SI thread. While it was sent to me as a private message, it included his permission to post it publically. - Rob Preuss. Rob: I just got your message on the class action lawsuit. Sorry it took me so long; I am back practicing law part time. I haven't had a chance yet to look thoroughly at the thread, the press releases, and whatever there is on the lawsuit. It looks like the way the lawyer has gone about things has pissed people off. A lot of the problem stems from the attempt Congress made to "clean up" the class action profession in 1995. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires a lawyer who files a class action suit to advertise it, and to invite others to join in. The theory was that this would attract more investor participation in these suits, and thus give investors more of a voice. Unfortunately, the Act also stated elsewhere that the lead counsel (who essentially directs all aspects of the litigation) shall be that lawyer who represents the person who has the greatest stake in the litigation (that is, the person suing who lost the most money). Courts have interpreted this to allow lawyers to accumulate plaintiffs, so that the "group" they represent is, they hope, one that has larger losses than the person or group any other lawyer represents. Thus the "law of unintended consequences" is at work as the provision Congress enacted to improve class action practice has actually led to what many investors perceive as "ambulance chasing." All this has nothing to do with whether the lawsuit here is valid or invalid. I merely provide this by way of background. Rob, if you wish, you can post all or any part of my response on the thread. I have posted this as a Private Message because I did not know how much of this you wished to keep confidential. I'll try to get a feel for the situation soon, and get back to you. If any other questions occur to you in the meantime, let me know. Good luck. Larry.

To: jeffbas who wrote (562)	3/5/1998 5:19:00 PM
From: Rob Preuss	Respond to of 1250

BOSTON, March 3 (Reuters) - ACT Manufacturing Inc and certain of its officers were named in a shareholder lawsuit alleging that the company misled investors about its financial condition, attorneys for the plaintiff said Tuesday. The civil suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed February 27 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who purchased ACT common stock between October 1, 1997, and February 25, 1998. In a statement, the plaintiff's attorneys said the complaint alleged that ACT's financial statements during the recent period did not accurately reflect the company's true financial position and results of operations. ACT officials were not immediately available Tuesday to comment. The plaintiff, Shashi Mirpuri, seeks to recover unspecified damages and is represented by the law firms of Gilman and Pastor LLP of Boston and Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP of New York. Mirpuri purchased about 600 shares during the period cited in the complaint, an attorney acting on his behalf said. On February 25, ACT announced it had postponed reporting its fourth-quarter and full-year results, citing a "significant shortfall in inventory" that it expected will have "a material impact on operating results." On February 26, ACT's stock plunged nearly four points to 12-5/8 from its February 25 closing price of 16-1/2. The stock also had a sharp fall to 19-13/16 from 32-7/8 in mid-October. ACT hit a high of 48 in August last year. Late Tuesday, ACT's stock was trading down 3/16 at 11-9/16 on Nasdaq.

To: jeffbas who wrote (562)	3/5/1998 5:22:00 PM
From: Rob Preuss	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1250

HUDSON, Mass., March 4 /PRNewswire/ -- ACT Manufacturing, Inc. (Nasdaq: ACTM) today announced that is has been named as a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the United State District Court for the District of Massachusetts purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period October 1, 1997 to February 25, 1998. The complaint also names as defendants certain of the Company's directors and officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants knowingly made misstatements to the investing public about the Company's inventory and the accuracy of its accounting practices. The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously contest them. ACT Manufacturing, Inc., headquartered in Hudson, Massachusetts, provides value added electronics manufacturing services for original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") in the networking, computer, telecommunications, industrial and medical equipment markets. The Company provides OEMs with complex printed circuit board ("PCB") assembly primarily utilizing advanced surface mount technology ("SMT"), mechanical and molded cable and harness assembly, electro-mechanical sub-assembly, and total system assembly and integration. This Press Release contains forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company's periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 1996 and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the first, second and third quarters of 1997 detail some important risk factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from any forward-looking statements. SOURCE ACT Manufacturing, Inc. /CONTACT: Douglass C. Greenlaw of ACT Manufacturing, 978-562-8046/ (ACTM)