Lawsuits ARE material and must be reported. And, you are correct. There has been no mention of this suit. Since it went back to January of this year, one would have to believe they knew about it before the 3/31 Q ending. How did they get heard and a judgement found so quickly?
Now, what funny is there's probably no money to garnish. If there was, they'd probably claim it was TRUST FUND money for the Employee payroll!! ROFLMAO
Here's all they said in their 10-Q for last Q.
Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
In April 2008, we were served with a lawsuit filed against us in Venice, Italy, by Gio Marco S.p.A. and Gio IDH S.p.A., related Italian companies which, between them, had purchased three CTLM® systems in 2005. One system was purchased directly from us, and the other two were purchased from our former Italian distributor and an affiliate of the distributor.
The plaintiffs alleged that they purchased the CTLM® systems for experimental purposes based on alleged oral assurances by our sales representative to the effect that we would promptly receive PMA approval for the CTLM® and that we would give them exclusive distribution rights in Italy. The plaintiffs are seeking to recover a total of €628,595, representing the aggregate purchase price of the systems plus related expenses.
Based on our preliminary investigation of this matter, we believed that this claim was without merit, and we vigorously defended the case. Our Italian counsel responded to the lawsuit in November 2008 and requested and was granted an extension to May 2009 to respond. Our counsel filed our defenses in the Court of Venice at a hearing held in June 2009. The judge set the next hearing for March 3, 2010 in order to allow the parties to clarify their claims and defenses. At the hearing, the plaintiffs did not prove all of the facts underlying their claims. The Judge set a hearing for November 10, 2010 for the “clarification of conclusions”. At that time, our counsel planned to present our demand for damages from “vexatious litigation” by the plaintiffs. The November 10, 2010 hearing was postponed until November 17, 2010. At the hearing, the plaintiffs failed to present their statements to the court in a timely manner and therefore, we believe that the plaintiffs should no longer be able to pursue any legal remedy in this matter. The last hearing of the case was held on November 17, 2010. A hearing was held on September 28, 2011 and the Judge declared that the case was closed. Our counsel requested a copy of the order of the court to be sent to the Plaintiffs notifying them that the case was closed. Because the court is sending notice to the plaintiffs, the time for appeal is reduced from one year to one month. If the plaintiffs do not appeal, the court’s decision becomes final. As of the date of this report, we have not received a copy of the order of the court notifying us that the case was closed.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
