case 1:05-cv-02720-sas document1 filed 03/09/2005 page 1 of...

Case 1:05-cv-02720-SAS Document 1 Filed 03/09/2005 of 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

} CIVIL ACTION NO.:

TOM DOOLEY, PARVIS POURFARID,MARK TARICH, RENEE TARICH,And EMIL TOTH, On Behalf Of Themselves ) EC CASE

and All Others Similarly Situated, )

Plaintiffs , ) CLAS C

COM NT OROvs. ) VIOLA N F

Y BFEDE W• C

TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., )PATRICK W. SMITH, THOMAS P. )SMITH AND PHILIP SMITH ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants. )

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, by and

through their undersigned attorneys, allege, upon personal knowledge and belief as to themselves

and their acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, based upon, among other

things, the investigation conducted by and through their counsel, including a review and analysis

of the public filings made by Taser International, Inc. ("Taser" or the "Company") with the

Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and published reports, news articles and press

releases.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

I. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of

Taser Corporation between October 18, 2004 and January 6, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"),

to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.

1394887


2. Taser is an Arizona based and Delaware incorporated developer and manufacturer

of devices for use in the law enforcement, corrections, private security and personal defense

markets. Its products are primarily marketed to law enforcement agencies, though in 43 states

they may be sold legally to consumers as well. Among the products Taser manufactures are

electric shock weapons that shoot electrified barbs designed to incapacitate assailants.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Jurisdiction is conferred by § 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 78aa and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The claims asserted in this

Complaint arise under § § 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a),

and Rule I Ob-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.1 Ob-5, promulgated thereunder by the SEC, and therefore

present federal questions.

4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to § 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.

78aa and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Taser has significant business operations , and many

of the acts and transactions alleged herein occurred in substantial part within this Judicial

District.

5. In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this Complaint,

the Defendants, directly and indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate

commerce including, but not limited to, the United States mail, interstate wire and telephone

facilities, the facilities of the national securities markets and the Internet to distribute the false

and misleading statements complained of herein.

THE PARTIES

6. During the Class Period, plaintiffs and each member of the Class were damaged

by purchasing Taser securities in the open market without knowledge of the false and misleading

2394887


statements and omissions of the Defendants, and without knowledge that the price of Taser stock

was artificially inflated. Furthermore, during the Class Period, the plaintiffs and each member of

the class directly or indirectly relied upon the Defendants' public reports, press releases, filings

with the SEC and other public documents, as more fully described below, and the proposition

that Taser's securities were fairly priced and/or upon the integrity of the market for Taser

securities. As a result, plaintiffs and each member of the Class have been damaged by

Defendants' wrongful conduct.

7. Plaintiffs Tom Dooley, Parvis Pourfarid, Mark Tarich, Renee Tarich, and Emil

Toth, purchased securities of Taser during the Class Period as set forth in the accompanying

Certifications.

8. Defendant Taser is a Delaware corporation which maintains its principal

executive office at 7860 E. McClain Drive, Suite 2, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260. Taser is

publically traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the symbol TASR. According to the

Company's Form. l 0-Q filed with the SEC on November 15, 2004, there were 29,047,427 shares

outstanding as of September 30 2004. On November 4, 2004, the Company announced a 2-for-I

stock split of its Common Stock in the form of a 100% stock dividend with each shareholder of

record on November 15, 2004 (the "Record Date") being entitled to receive a stock dividend of 1

share of Common Stock of the Company for each I share of Common Stock held as-of the

Record Date with delivery on or about November 29, 2004.

9. Defendant Patrick W. Smith, a co-founder of the company, was, at all relevant

times, the Company's Chief Executive Officer.

10. Defendant Thomas P. Smith, a co-founder of the company, was, at all relevant

times , the Company's President.

3394887


11. Defendant Philip W. Smith was, at all relevant times, a director of the Company.

12. Defendants Patrick Smith, Thomas Smith and Philip Smith are referred to herein

as the "Individual Defendants."

SCIENTER

13. As officers, directors and/or controlling persons of a publicly held company

whose securities are registered with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933, traded on the

NASDAQ and governed by the provisions of the Exchange Act, the Individual Defendants had a

duty to promptly disseminate accurate and truthful information with respect to Taser's operations,

finances, financial condition, products, revenues and future business prospects, to correct any

previously issued statements that had become untrue, and to disclose any trends that could

materially affect earnings and the present and future operating results of Taser, so that the market

price of its publicly traded securities would be based on truthful and accurate information.

14. During the Class Period, the Individual Defendants were senior officers and/or

directors of Taser and were privy to confidential and proprietary information concerning Taser,

its operations, finances, financial condition, revenues and present and future business prospects.

Because of their possession of such information, the Individual Defendants acted with scienter in

that they knew that the public documents and statements , issued or disseminated by or in the

name of the defendants or the Company were materially false and misleading; knew or recklessly

disregarded that such statements or documents would be issued or disseminated to the investing

public; and knowingly and substantially participated in the issuance or dissemination of such

statements or documents, and are primary violators of the federal securities laws. The Individual

Defendants, by virtue of their receipt of information reflecting the true facts regarding Taser's

business operations, their control over Taser's allegedly materially misleading misstatements

4394887


and/or their control over and close association with the Company, which make them privy to

confidential information concerning all of Taser's activities and operations, were active and

culpable participants in the fraudulent scheme alleged herein. The Individual Defendants, and,

through them, Taser, knew and/or recklessly disregarded the false and misleading nature of the

information which they caused to be disseminated to the investing public. The fraudulent

scheme described in this Complaint could not have been perpetrated without the knowledge and

complicity of the Individual Defendants, who were Taser's top executives and hands-on

managers.

15. The Individual Defendants are liable as participants in a fraudulent scheme and

course of conduct that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Taser's securities by

disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material, adverse

facts. The scheme: (I) deceived the investing public regarding Taser's business, operations, and

management and the intrinsic value of Taser securities; and (ii) caused the plaintiffs and the other

members of the Class to purchase Taser's securities at artificially inflated prices.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

16. The plaintiffs bring this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf themselves and all other persons who purchased

Taser securities from October 18, 2004 through January 6, 2005, inclusive. Excluded from the

Class are Taser, its subsidiaries and affiliates, the Individual Defendants, members of the

defendants' immediate families, their legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns and any

person acting in concert with or under the control of any defendant.

17. The members of the Class, for whose benefit this action is brought, are dispersed

throughout the United States and are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

5394887


While the exact number of Class Members is unknown to plaintiffs at this time, plaintiffs

reasonably believe that there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of members of the Class.

18. The plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of other Class Members because

the damage suffered by plaintiffs and all members of the Class arise from defendants' wrongful

conduct as alleged in this Complaint.

19. The plaintiffs are representative parties who will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the other members of the Class and have retained counsel competent and experienced

in class action securities litigation . The plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to, or in conflict

with, the interests of the Class they seek to represent.

20. A class action is superior to the other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of the claims asserted in this Complaint because the Class is so numerous and

geographically dispersed throughout the United States that it would be impractical for each

member of the Class to bring separate actions or be joined in one individual action. Furthermore,

because the damages suffered by the individual Class members may be relatively small, the

expense and burden of individual litigation make it virtually impossible for the Class members to

separately redress the wrongs done to them. The likelihood of individual Class members

prosecuting separate claims is remote. Also, the adjudication of this controversy through a class

action will avoid the possibility of inconsistent and possibly conflicting adjudications of the

claims asserted herein.

21. The plaintiffs anticipate no unusual difficulties in the management of this case as

a class action. The names and addresses of record owners of the shares of the Company's

securities may be determined through the transfer agent, and notice can be provided to such

persons through appropriate means of notice through publication, mailing and notices over

6394887


business wire services in a form similar to those customarily used in class action litigation arising

under the federal securities laws.

22. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and

predominate over any questions affecting solely individual members of the Class. Among the

common questions of fact are:

a) whether the federal securities laws were violated by the defendants' acts as

alleged in this Complaint;

b) whether defendants participated in the alleged fraudulent scheme;

c) whether defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts

regarding the Company's business, management, products, financial condition and business

prospects, as more fully particularized herein;

d) whether the Individual Defendants are "controlling persons" as that term is

defined in Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act;

e) whether the price of Taser's common stock was artificially inflated during

the Class Period due to the material misrepresentations and omissions complained of herein; and

f) whether the members of the Class have sustained damages, and if so, what

is the proper measure of such damages.

FRAUD-ON-THE-MARKET DOCTRINE

23. The plaintiffs will rely, in part, upon reliance established by the fraud on the

market doctrine. The market for Taser securities was at all times an efficient market for the

following reasons:

a) Taser common stock met the requirements for listing and was listed on the

NASDAQ automated market system;

7394887


b) As a company registered pursuant to the provisions of the Exchange Act,

Taser filed periodic public reports with the SEC and the National Association of Securities

Dealers ("NASD") and was subject to the requirements for providing timely and accurate

information to the investing public pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC and the

NASD;

c) Taser securities trading volume was substantial during the Class Period;

d) Taser was followed by various securities analysts, who wrote reports that

were available through various automated retrieval services;

e) Taser regularly communicated with public investors, analysts and market

professionals generally regarding the release of current information, and generally assured that

information was released over major newswire services on a current basis;

f) The market price of Taser reacted efficiently to new information entering

the market.

24. The above facts demonstrate the existence of an efficient market for Taser

securities and make applicable the fraud-on-the-market doctrine. Thus, Plaintiffs and the other

members of the Class are entitled to a presumption of reliance with respect to the misstatements

and omissions alleged in this Complaint.

SUBSTANTIAL ALLEGATIONS

Background

25. The Company has fervently developed the perception that its products are non-

lethal, generally safe and, therefore, ideal for temporarily incapacitating suspects without causing

permanent injuries or death. The marketability of Taser products was based on this perception.

Whenever this perception was challenged, as it was repeatedly during the Class Period, the

394887


Company aggressively defended it. For example, on July 18, 2004, the New York Times reported

that 50 people had died since 2001 after being shocked with Taser guns; that no independent

studies substantiated the Company's safety claims; and that Company-backed studies lacked

credibility:

Mr. Lieberman joined a growing number of people, now at least50, including 6 in June alone, who have died since 2001 after beingshocked. Taser International, which makes several versions of theguns, says its weapons are not lethal, even for people with heartconditions or pacemakers. The deaths resulted from drugoverdoses or other factors and would have occurred anyway, theCompany says.

But Taser has scant evidence for that claim. The company'sprimary safety studies on the M26, which is far more powerful thanother stun guns, consist of tests on a single pig in 1996 and on fivedogs in 1999. Company-paid researchers, not independentscientists, conducted the studies, which were never published in apeer-review journal. Taser has no full-time medical director andhas never created computer models to simulate the effect of itsshocks, which are difficult to test in human clinical trials forethical reasons.

What is more, aside from a continuing Defense Department study,the results of which have not been released, no federal or stateagencies have studied the safety, or effectiveness, of Tasers, whichfall between two federal agencies and are essentially unregulated.Nor has any federal agency studied the deaths to determine whatcaused them. In at least two cases, local medical examiners havesaid Tasers were partly responsible. In many cases, autopsies arecontinuing or reports are unavailable.

The few independent studies that have examined the Taser havefound that the weapon's safety is unproven at best. The mostcomprehensive report, by the British government in 2002,concluded "the high-power Tasers cannot be classed, in thevernacular, as `safe'." Britain has not approved Tasers for generalpolice use.

A 1989 Canadian study found that stun guns induced heart attacksin pigs with pacemakers. A 1999 study by the Department ofJustice on an electrical weapon much weaker than the Taser foundthat it might cause cardiac arrest in people with heart conditions.

9394887

Case 1 : 05-cv-02720-SAS Document 1 Filed 03/09/2005 of 38

In reviewing other electrical devices, the Food and DrugAdministration has found that a charge half as large as that of the

M26 can be dangerous to the heart.

26. On July 19, 2004, the Company issued a press release in response to the New

York Times article. The release titled, "TASER®) International Strongly Refutes New York

Times Article" dismissed the New York Times article and represented that the Company's

products had been extensively tested on volunteer police officers, volunteers from Taser's senior

management and numerous Taser employees. The press release strongly reiterated defendants'

position that Taser's products save lives every day.

27. On October 18, 2004, defendants issued a press release reporting the results of a

U.S. Department of Defense study by the Human Effects Center of Excellence ("HECOE")

which "conclud[ed] that Taser technology is generally effective without significant risk of

unintended results." Defendant Patrick Smith, in the same press release hailed the study as the

"latest chapter in a series of comprehensive medical and scientific studies which conclude that

Taser technology is safe and effective." The Company claimed that Taser technology was not the

primary cause of death occurring after the technology was used on suspects.

28. During the week following defendants' announcement affirming the safety of the

Company's products the Individual Defendants sold a total of $63 million worth of Taser stock.

During the Class Period the Individual Defendants sold a total of 1,276,440 shares of Taser

common stock.

29. The Company's interpretation of the HECOE study, and other statements made

during the Class Period discussed in more detail below, was materially false and misleading

because the HECOE study in fact found that Taser technology could be dangerous and that more

information was needed to evaluate its risks.

10394887


30. On January 6, 2004, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release

announcing a SEC inquiry into the Company's statements concerning the safety of its products.

Additionally, the SEC sought information concerning a suspicious, large end-of-quarter (4Q) sale

to Davidson ' s, Inc., one of the Company' s distributors.

31. The market reacted swiftly to this announcement, the price of Taser common

stock plummeted, falling $4.90 per share to close at $22.72 per share on January 7, 2005, a one-

day drop of 18% on unusually heaving trading volume of over 35.7 million shares.

Materially False and MisleadingStatements. Made During the Class Period

32. On October 18, 2004, the first day of the class period, the Company issued a press

release stating that the HECOE study found the Company's stun guns were "safe and effective."

Specifically, that the products were not the primary cause of the deaths of people who had been

subdued by a Taser product. In relevant part, defendants and Defendant Patrick Smith

specifically, represented the following:

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Oct 18 , 2004 /PRNewswire-FirstCall viaCOMTEX/ -- TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq : TASR), amarket leader in advanced non-lethal weapons , announced todaythat a Department of Defense (DoD) study by the Human EffectsCenter of Excellence (HECOE) concludes that TASER technologyis generally effective without significant risk of unintended results.HECOE, established by the Air Force Research Laboratory and theJoint Non-Lethal Weapons Program , conducted a HumanEffectiveness and Risk Characterization (HERC) ofTASERElectromuscular Disruption (EMD) devices.

"The HECOE study is the latest chapter in a series ofcomprehensive medical and scientific studies which conclude thatTASER technology is safe and effective," said Rick Smith, CEO ofTASER International, Inc. "This study re-affirms the life-savingvalue of TASER technology and is consistent with the recentindependent findings of researchers in the United Kingdom andCanada," stated Mr. Smith.

ll394887


The HECOE report summary concludes that TASER technology isnot likely the primary factor in the cause of in-custody fatalities."Based on the documentation and research reviewed, this report

concludes that EMI is likely not the primary causative factor inreported fatalities." Comparison of instances where TASERdevices were not used versus those involving TASER device usageshows no significant relationship between the use ofTASERtechnology and death. Furthermore, ventricular fibrillation (VF) isnot expected to occur in otherwise healthy adult populations,although data are too limited to evaluate probabilities forpotentially sensitive populations or for alternative patterns ofexposure. However, the report states no cases of VF have beenreported in thousands of training or field exposure conditions.

Additionally, the study indicates-that increased use of TASERdevices has decreased the overall injury rate of both police officersand suspects in conflict situations when compared to alternativeuses of force.

The research was the culmination of a multi-faceted scientificapproach, consistent with the National Academy of Sciences andthe Society for Risk Analysis recommendations and standards.

Three workshops were conducted as part of the riskcharacterization. The first, a data-sharing workshop, identifiedpossible sources of relevant data and determined anyinsufficiencies in effectively evaluating TASER devices. Thesecond, a peer consultation workshop, outlined potential data gaps,identified additional sources of data, and provided feedback onpreliminary strategies for completing dose-response and exposureassessments. At the third workshop, an Independent ExternalReview Panel submitted comments and recommendations thatwere incorporated into the formal HECOE document.

According to the report summary, "Overall, the results indicate thatthe use of the TASER M26 and X26, as intended, will generally beeffective in inducing the desired temporarily incapacitating effectwithout presenting a significant risk of unintended severe effects."

"This comprehensive independent study further supports the safetyof TASER conducted energy devices," commented Mr. Smith."The HECOE report adds to the growing number ofgovernmentand medical studies that have validated the safety and effectivenessof this impressive new technology".

12394887


33. On October 19, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing "record"

after-tax earnings for Taser's third quarter 2004. Specifically, defendants reported the following

results:

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Oct 19, 2004 IPRNewswire-FirstCall via

COMTEX/ -- TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq: TASR) a market

leader in advanced non-lethal devices reported today that revenues

for the third quarter of 2004 were a record $18.9 million with

earnings of $6.1 million and earnings per basic share of $0.21.

Revenues increased 211% over the third quarter of 2003. Net

income grew 469% over the third quarter of 2003, and 36% over

the second quarter of 2004, the previous record. As of September

30, 2004, the Company's cash balances were approximately $41.5

million, an increase of $25.6 million from December 31, 2003.

"The third quarter is historically our slowest quarter of the year and

we are pleased to be able to report such solid results . With the

continued strong new business picture for the company through

three consecutive quarters , we now believe we can increase

guidance on revenue growth from 150% to an increase of 175%

over the prior year," stated Rick Smith, CEO ofTASER

International, Inc.

34. The press release went on to quote defendant Patrick Smith, who once again,

touted the findings of the HECOE study, adding that this was only one of many studies which

demonstrate the safety of Taser products.

"During the quarter we achieved several significant milestones

including the United Kingdom's nationwide approval for armed

officers to carry TASER devices and the completion of the US

Department of Defense Human Effectiveness and Risk

Characterization (HERC) Report on TASER technology. This

report, prepared and peer reviewed by approximately twenty

medical and research doctors from a dozen government, academic

and private institutions, concluded that TASER devices were likely

not the primary causative factor in reported in-custody deaths. The

report also found that 'analyses provided by law enforcement

agencies indicate that increased use of the TASER M26 or the

TASER X26 has decreased the overall injury rate of both police

officers and suspects in conflict situations when compared to

alternatives along the use-of-force continuum.' We believe this

report together with other independent reports on TASER safety

13394887


from Canada, the United Kingdom, and a panel of independentdoctors commissioned to review the TASER in Orange CountyFlorida, provide clear, independent answers to the question ofTASER safety and clearly support the life-saving value of thistechnology," continued Mr. Smith.

35. On November 26, 2004, the New York Times published an article refuting the

defendants' interpretation of the results of the HECOE study and the safety of Taser products

generally. Specifically, the article reported the following:

Taser said last month that the government study, whose full resultshave not yet been released, found that its guns were safe. Sincethat statement, the Company's stock has soared and its executivesand directors have sold $68 million in shares, about 5% of Taser'sstock and nearly half their holdings.

But the Air Force laboratory that conducted the study now says thatit actually found that the guns could be dangerous and that moredata was needed to evaluate their risks. The guns "may causeseveral unintended effects, albeit with low probabilities ofoccurrence," the laboratory said last week in a statement releasedafter a symposium on Tasers, as the company's guns are known,and other weapons intended to incapacitate people without killingthem.

Taser said Wednesday that it stood behind its October statement.

36. On the same day, defendants issued a press release in response to the New York

Times article concerning the questions on the safety of Taser products in which the Company

"unequivocally" affirmed its earlier characterization of the HECOE study. Specifically,

defendant Patrick Smith stated:

"Our press release on October 18, 2004 regarding the results of theHuman Effects Center of Excellence (HECOE) TASER safetyevaluation was reviewed and approved by representatives of theJoint Non-Lethal Weapons Program, Brooks Air Force Base andthe HECOE. TASER International unequivocally stands behind ourHECOE release of October 18 , 2004," concluded Mr. Smith.

37. Defendants strong refutation of the New York Times article kept Taser's stock

14394887


price up. The stock price rose from $23.50 per share on November 26, 2004 to $25.46 per share

by November 29, 2004.

38. On November 30, 2004, Amnesty International issued a press release expressing

concern with the "growing number of fatalities involving police tasers" as well as the apparent

growing use of the Company's products as "routine force options."

39. That same day defendants responded to the concerns Amnesty international

raised, specifically refuting these concerns. Defendant Patrick Smith reiterated the safety of

Taser products specifically highlighting the purported results of the HECOE study as support for

defendants' representations about the safety of Taser products by stating:

"Amnesty International's report fails to adequately describe theoverwhelming body of evidence supported by independentscientific and medical experts (see compilation below) that havestudied current TASER technology and its use," said Rick Smith,CEO ofTASER International, Inc. "Amnesty has repeatedly calledfor independent testing while ignoring the mounting independentcomprehensive reports showing TASER technology is safe andeffective. Anyone living in the real world in which lawenforcement officers worldwide have to make split-second life ordeath decisions knows that Amnesty International's report andposition is out of step with the needs of law enforcementconcerning our proven life-saving technology," said Mr. Smith.

"Independent reviews of TASER technology were recentlycompleted by the United States Department of Defense HumanEffects Center of Excellence, the United Kingdom's DefenceScientific Advisory Council, an Independent TASER Medical TaskForce in Orange County, Florida, and by a host of governmentsfrom Australia to Canada," continued Mr. Smith. "These reportsclearly indicate that the TASER technology, while not risk-free, isamong the safest use-of-force options our law enforcement officershave."

40. Defendants' statements referenced in ¶' 32-39 were each materially false and

misleading because the failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse

facts, among others:

15394887


(a) That, contrary to defendants repeated representations, the much-

touted the HECOE study was inconclusive with respect to the

safety of Taser weapons and that further investigation was

necessary to conclusively establish their safety. That study did not

conclude that Taser technology was "safe and effective," or that

Taser technology was the "safest use-of-force option" available to

authorities; and

(b) That defendants unequivocal statements with respect to the

purported safety and effectiveness of Taser products, even in the

face of reasonable questions raised by various independent entities,

was lacking in any reasonable basis when made and deceived

investors regarding the risk inherent in investing in the Company

and the sustainability of the Company's growth.

41. On January 6, 2004, after the market closed, Taser issued a press release

announcing a SEC inquiry into the Company' s statements concerning the safety of its products.

Additionally, the SEC sought information concerning a suspicious large 4Q end-ofquarter sale

to Davidson's, Inc., one of the Company's distributors.

42. The market reacted quickly to this announcement, the price of Taser common

stock plummeted, falling from $27.62 per share on January 6, 2005 to close at $22.72 on January

7, 2005, a one-day drop of 18% on unusually heaving trading volume of over 35.7 million shares.

The Press Release, reproduced in part, stated:

TASER International, Inc. Cooperates with SEC Informal InquiryThursday January 6, 11:5 9 pm ETSCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Jan. 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- TASER

16394887


International, Inc., a market leader in advanced non-lethal devices,

today announced that it is cooperating with an informal inquiry

letter from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

We are compiling information to assist the SEC in two areas:Company statements regarding the safety of TASER® productsand a recent order received from Davidson's, Inc. "We areconfident our statements are supported by the safety studies of ourproducts," said Rick Smith, CEO of TASER International, Inc."We are in the process of compiling the information requested bythe SEC and look forward to working with them as we have withother independent entities interested in the safety of TASERdevices such as the United States Department of Defense, theHome Office of the United Kingdom and other governmentalagencies in the United States and abroad. Our public statementsabout the safety of TASER devices are consistent with those ofmedical experts that we have consulted, or in the case of theDepartment of Defense, were reviewed and approved prior torelease by the very agencies that have commissioned the research."

"Davidson's Inc. has been a distributor for TASER Internationalsince 1999. Davidson's most recent order was received and shippedin the normal course of business in the fourth quarter of 2004. Itfollowed a 60-day test market for our new X26C Citizens' DefenseSystem that included two of Davidson's firearms dealers. As aresult, we were pleased to secure Davidson's as the exclusivedistributor for this market segment with an agreement providingDavidson's the exclusive distribution rights to Federal FirearmsLicense (FFL) dealers. Davidson's ordered an initial 1,000 TASERX26C systems, costing less than one million dollars, fordistribution to their dealers with no right to return the product. Thisorder was announced together with an order for other lawenforcement products which brought the total order to $1.5million," continued Smith.

43. At all relevant times, the material misrepresentations and omissions detailed in

this Complaint directly or proximately caused or were a substantial contributing cause of the

damages sustained by plaintiffs and the members of the Class. Indeed, the Company's securities .

were overvalued and artificially inflated during the Class Period as a result of the markets'

unrealistic positive assessment of Taser, its business, prospects and operations, which was

created by defendants' series of materially false or misleading statements about Taser's business,

17394887


prospects and operations. Because plaintiffs and the other members of the Class were unaware

of the true state of Taser's business operations, they sustained damages by purchasing the

Company' s securities at artificially inflated prices.

ADDITIONAL SCIENTER ALLEGATIONS

44. As alleged herein, defendants acted with scienter in that defendants knew that the

public statements or documents issued or disseminated in the name of the Company were

materially false and misleading; knew that such statements or documents would be issued or

disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly and substantially participated or acquiesced

in the issuance or dissemination of such documents as primary violations of the federal securities

laws. As set forth elsewhere in detail, Defendants, by virtue of their receipt of information

reflecting the true facts regarding Taser and its business practices, their control over and/or

receipt of Taser's ali,;gedly material misleading misstatements and/or associations with the

Company which made them privy to confidential proprietary information concerning Taser were

active and culpable participants in the fraudulent scheme alleged herein. Defendants knew

and/or recklessly disregarded the falsity and misleading nature of the information which they

caused to be disseminated to the investing public.

45. The Individual Defendants were motivated to engage in the fraudulent conduct

alleged herein so that they could capitalize on the artificially inflated price of Taser common

stock. Defendants engaged in a pattern of selling that was both highly suspicious and substantial,

as detailed below:

NAME SALE DATE SHARES SOLD PROCEEDS

Patrick W. Smith 10/28/200411/9/2004

100,000 at $40.99160,000 at $54.0625

$4,099,000$8,650,000

18394887


11/10/2004 50,000 at $54.08 $2,704,000

Thomas P. Smith 10/2812004 100,000 at $40.99 $4,099,000

11/9/2004 160,000 at $54.0625 $8,650,000

Philip Smith 10/28/2004 200,000 at $40.99 $8,198,000

11/9/2004 150,000 at $52.70 $7,905,000

11/9/2004 100,474 at $54.0625 $5,431,875.63

11/10/2004 228,966 at $53.0277 $12,141,540.36

11/10/2004 27,000 at $57.9071 $1,563,481.70

Total Shares Sold: Total Proceeds:1,276,440 63,441,897.69

NO SAFE HARBOR

46. The statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements under certain

circumstances does not apply to any of the allegedly false statements pleaded in this Complaint.

Many of the specific statements pleaded herein were not identified as "forward-looking

statements" when made. To the extent there were any forward looking statements, there were no

meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to

differ materially from those in the purportedly forward-looking statements.

47. Alternatively, to the extent that statutory. safe harbor does apply to any forward-

looking statements pleaded herein, defendants are liable for those false forward-looking

statements because at the time each of those forward-looking statements was made, the particular.

speaker knew that the particular forward-looking statement was false, and/or the forward-looking

statement was authorized and/or approved by an executive officer of Taser who knew that

statement was false when made.

COUNT 1

VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(B) OF THEEXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 1OB-5

48. The plaintiffs repeat and realleges each and every allegation as if set forth in full

herein.

19394887


49. Throughout the Class Period, defendants, singly and in concert, directly or

indirectly, engaged in a common plan, scheme and course of conduct described herein, pursuant

to which they knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, transactions, practices and a course of

business which operated as a fraud upon plaintiffs and other members of the Class; made various

false statements of material facts and omitted to stated materials to make the statements made not

misleading to plaintiffs and the other members of the Class; and employed manipulative or

deceptive devices and contrivances in connection with the purchase and sale of Taser securities.

50. The purpose and effect of defendants' plan, scheme and course of conduct was to

artificially inflate the price of Taser securities and to artificially maintain the market price of

Taser securities.

51. Defendants, who include the top officer of the Company, had actual knowledge of

the material omissions and/or the falsity of the material statements set forth above and intended

-to. deceive plaintiffs and the other members of the Class, or, in the alternative, acted with reckless

disregard for the truth when they failed to ascertain and disclose the true facts in the statements

made by them or other Taser personnel to the SEC, securities analysts and members of the

investing public, including plaintiffs and the Class.

52. As a result of the foregoing, the market price of Taser securities was artificially

inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the falsity of the reports and statements and the

material misstatements by defendants regarding the financial condition and growth prospects of

Taser during the Class Period and the deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances

employed by defendants, plaintiffs and the other members of the Class relied, to their damage, on

the reports and statements described above and/or the integrity of the market price of Taser stock

during the Class Period in purchasing Taser common stock at prices which were artificially

20394887


inflated as a result of defendants' false and misleading statements.

53. Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class would not have purchased Taser

securities at artificially inflated prices had they known of the material adverse information which

defendants did not disclose.

54. Defendants' concealment of this material information served only to harm

plaintiffs and the other members of the Class who purchased Taser securities in ignorance of the

financial risk to them as a result of such non-disclosures.

55. As a result of the wrongful conduct alleged herein, plaintiffs and other members

of the Class have suffered damages in an amount to be established at trial.

56. By reason of the foregoing, defendants have violated Section 10(b) of the

Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule lOb-5 promulgated thereunder and are liable to the

plaintiff and the other members of the Class for the substantial damages which they suffered in

connection with their purchase of Taser common stock during the Class Period.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF SECTION 20(A) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT

57. The plaintiffs repeats and reallege each and every allegation set forth in full

herein.

58. During the Class Period, the Individual Defendants, by virtue of their offices

and/or directorships and their specific acts were, at the time of the wrongs alleged herein,

controlling persons of Taser within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The

Individual Defendants had the power and influence and exercised the same to cause Taser to

engage in the illegal conduct and practices complained of herein by causing the Company to

disseminate to the public, or through analysts, the materially false and misleading information

21394887


referred above.

59. The Individual Defendants' positions made them privy to and provided them with

actual knowledge of the material facts concealed from plaintiffs and the Class by Taser during

the Class Period.

60. By reason of the conduct alleged in the First Count, the Individual Defendants are

liable for the aforesaid wrongful conduct and are liable to the plaintiff and the members of the

Class for the substantial damages which they suffered in connection with their purchases of Taser

securities during the Class Period.

WHEREFORE , Plaintiffs, on their own behalf, and on behalf of the other members of

the Class, pray for judgment as follows:

a) Declaring this action to be a proper class action and certifying the

plaintiffs as Class Representatives and their counsel as Class Counsel;

b) declaring and determining that the defendants violated the federal

securities laws by reason of their conduct as alleged herein;

c) awarding monetary damages against the defendants, jointly and severally,

in favor of the plaintiffs and the other members of the Class for all losses and injuries suffered as

a result of the acts and transactions complained of herein, together with prejudgment interest on

all of the aforesaid damages which the Court shall award from the date of said wrongs to the date

ofjudgment herein at a rate the Court shall fix;

d) awarding plaintiffs their costs and expenses incurred in this action,

including reasonable attorneys', accountants' and experts' fees; and

e) awarding such other relief as may be just and proper.

22394987


JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.

Dated: March 9, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN

& HERZ LLP

By:Fred Taylor Isquitb (F16-7 2)

Gustavo Bruckner (GB 7701)

270 Madison AvenueNew York, New York 10016

Telephone: (212) 545-4600

Facsimile: (212) 545-4653

MAGER WHITE & GOLDSTEIN, LLP

Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.

2825 University Drive, Suite 350

Coral Springs, FL 33065

Telephone: (954) 341-0844

Facsimile: (954) 341-0855

23394887

Mar 118 05 C?P?2 a5-cv-q? 3R PAU%I TPRBffflgft't I n FI 1190 03 20 J40 24 of 38

CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFPURSUANT TO FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS

I, Tom Dooley ("Plaintiff '), duly swear and say, as to the claims asserted under the

federal securities laws, that:

I . I have reviewed a securities class action complaint styled Tom Dooley vs. Taser

p.2

Internationall. Inc and authorize the filing of a substantially similar complaint (and any necessary

amendment thereto) on Plaintiffs behalf,

2. Plaintiff did not purchase the securities that are the subject of this action at the

direction ofPlaintiffs counsel or in order to participate in this private action.

3. Plaintiff is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf ofthe class,

including providing testimony at deposition and trial, ifnecessary.

4. During the Class Period (October 18, 2004 through January 6, 2005), Plaintiffs

transactions in shares in TarerInternational, Inc., which company is the subject of this action,

were as follows:

Acquisition Date

J-ce,

Number of Shares Price. Per Share

5. I have / have not sold my shares in Taser International, Inc. as follows:

Sale Da Number of Sham Price Per Share

6. Plaintiff has not served, nor sought to serve, as a class representative in a federal

securities fraud case in the last three years.

3Marv 08 05 C e2^25-cv-gg&ORSi§ I TMlffri i IN F1@0 O3 2( -c 25 of 38 P.

7. Plaintiff wil not accept any payment for serving as a representative party on

behalf of the class beyond the plaintiffspro rata share of any recovery, or as ordered or approved

by the Court, including any award for reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages)

directly relating to the representation ofthe class.

I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this

day of r2 8 , 2005.

Tom Dooley

Mar 98 05,gqse X25-cv-( S6§I T&@kiOtri IN Fj1& 03, 2(j1 - 26 of 38 p. 4ra8c t u.f

742m 4)OOL-FY

AMER TRADE .A:..-.-..'.^ Search Help

Trade jI Portfolio Streamer Suite," Research [lagout] - Held

History Express Trading: Dis bi Fri Jan 28 200S 8:12:28 PM EST

Iran lons Statements Con€irmatlarts Tax Documents Account Balances

10/18/2004 Cash balance $17TYPW

1/6/2005 Cash balance $2S m,bol(s):

(separate symbols with commas) Net c hange -$14

View last: i day 7 s 14 daya 60 da

View date/range

from : Octob r ^• 18 r 2004

to: J Jan + F=- 2005 ± Ytew at oownload

Search results for 10/ 18/2004 to 1/6/2005 Printer-friend

Oate/1 i[^ Description Amount Net Cash Balance•

10/22/2004 10:57:30 Bought 980 TASR 0 40.92 -40,112.59 ---

10/22/2004 11:01 : 59 Sold 980 TASK 0 41.02 40, 27.66 ---

10/22/2004 11:05 : 01 Bought 1000 TASK 0 41.339 -41,349.99

10/22/2004 11 :08:46 Sold 200 TASK 0 41.52 8,292,81 ---

10/22/2004 11:08:46 Sold 800 TASR 0 41.528 33,221.62

10/22/2004 11:20:11 Bought 900 TASR 0 42.089 -37,880.10

10/22/2004 11:20 : 11 Bought 100 TASR 0 42.09 -4,219.99 ---

10/22/2004 11:22:59 Sold 1000 TASR 0 42.121 42,109.02 _»-

10/22/2004 12:07 :02 Bought 300 TASR 0 42.13 -12,649.99

10/22/2004 12:07 :02 Bought 900 TASR 0 42.14 -37,926.00

10/22/2004 12:12 :46 Sold 1200 TASK © 42.11 50,519.82

10/22/2004 12 : 24:36 Bought 1200 TASR 0 42 .02 -50,434.99

10/22/2004 14:55 : 30 Sold 1200 TASR 0 40.60 46,7G7.86

11/10/2004 09:47 :49 Bought 582 TASR 0 53.30 -31 ,031.59

11/10/2004 09:57:11 Sold 582 TASR 0 53.37 31,049.62 ---

11/10/2004 10:05:21 Bought 591 TASR 0 54.86 -32,433.25 ---

11/10/2004 10 : 19:01 Bought 591 TASR 0 54.85 -32,427. 34

11/10/2004 11:03 :43 Sold 591 TASR 0 54.86 32,410.51 ---

11/10/2004 11:21 : 36 Sold 591 TASR 0 55.00 32,493.24 ---

https://wwws.ameritrade.com/cgi-bin/appa/u/History 1/28/2005

Mar 05, qp?%8i5-cv-PAR* TE!I4 L d I r ELqPd0:J(QW4Q5 -ofsge 27 of 38 p.5Page 2 of2

11/10/2004 14:28:35 Sought 200 TASK 0 54.50 -10,910.99 ---

11/10/2004 14:40:32 Bought 380 TASK 0 54.60 -20,758.99 ---

11/10/2004 14:46:37 Sold 580 TASK 0 54.90 31; 830.26 --

11/10/2004 15:00:01 Bought 580 TASK 0 54.70 -31,736.99 ---

11/10/2004 15:57:02 Sold 580 TASK 0 55.00 31,88L.25 _--

11/11/2004 09:31:10 Bought 585 TASR 0 58.14 -34,02.2.89

11/11/2004 09:43:40 Sold 585 TASK @ 58.30 34,093.71

11/11/2004 14:52:22 Bought 1000 TASR 0 57.73 -57,740,99 ---

11/12/2004 10:20:53 Sold 1000 TASK 0 57.85 57,337.65 ---

11/12/2004 10:23:30 Bought 100 TASK @ 58.41 -5,851.99

11/12/2004 10.23:30 Bought 100 TASR 0 58.42 -5,842.00 ---

11/12/2004 10:23:30 Bought 85 TASK 0 58.44 -4,967.40

11/12/2004 10:23:30 Sought 410 Task @ 58.45 -23,964.50 ---

11/12/2004 10:23:30 Bought 200 TASK 0 58.46 -11,692.00

11/12/2004 10:23:30 Bought 105 TASK 0 58.50 -5,142.50

11/12/2004 10:26:56 Sold 1000 TA5R 0 58.50 58,487.64 ---

11/12/2004 10:47:23 Sought 1000 TASR 0 59.40 -59,410.99 --

11/15/2004 11:08:50 Sold 1000 TASK 0 60.01 59,597.60 ---

11/15/2004 15:59:30 Bought 1100 TASK 0 60.88 -66,978.99

11/22/2004 15:51:54 Sold 30 TA5R 0 49.58 1,476.37 ---

11/26/2004 12:48:38 Sold 1070 TASK 0 47.31 50,609.52

Unauthorized access and use is prohibited. Usage Is monitored. Ameritrade, Division of Atnerttrade, Inc., member NASD/SI .Ameritrade, Ameritrade logo and Amerltrade Apex are trademarks or registered trademarks of Ameritrade iP Company, Iris.0 2005 Ameritrade 1P Company. Inc. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

o ct,$ A ,rjtrZ4€.Ho .Cgrp,. Mink tjtm, Rglit .lepts Prhracy, S ldt'.Ryaa%Lwjwr.xty ppr Intoi .tion

https://wwws.ameritrade.com/cgi-biniapps/u/History 1/28/2005

Mar ae CIS, gqlea95-cv-WW S6 tT ,ULr tgtti FJ( 1 03JW2®®5. -oBsge 28 of 38

CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFPURSUANT TO FEDERAL S] CASLAWS

I. Parviz Pourfarid ("Plaintiff"), duly swear and say, as to the claims asserted under the


I . I have reviewed a securities class action complaint styled Parviz Pourfarid vs.

Taser International, Inc. and authorize the filing ofa substantially similar complaint (and any

necessary amendment thereto) on Plaintiffs behalf.



3. Plaintiff is willing to save as a representative party on behalf ofthe class,

including providing testimony at deposition and trial, ifnecessary.

4. During the Class Period (October 18, 2004 through January 6, 2005), Plaintiff s

transactions in sham in Taser International, Inc., which company is the subject ofthis action,

were as follows:

Acquisition Date Nurnber of Shares Price er' Share

S - Q $acb^-,0 0( 5J'e

5. I have / have not sold my shares in Taser International, Ina as follows:

Sale Date Number of Shares Price Per Share

4q acJ,,o d- e+


p,13


Mar 08 05 y^iSg j:a05-cv- 7SQ i TAMEN 'g I M FiL 03QW2QQ.j -oBage 29 of 38 p.14

7. Plaintiff will not accept any payment for serving as a representative party on

behalf of the class beyond the plaintiff spro rata share ofany recovery, or as ordered or approved


directly relating to the representation of the class.

I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct . Executed this

day of 2005.

Parviz Pourfarrid

Mar © 0 5 qqS%^^S-cv-gASQPIT ^'dIN FtJLIel 03dM2 @8 -oP 3 30 of 38 P. 15

E TRADE F NANCIAL - Trading & Portfolios Page 1 of 2

E*TRADE QUOM SFARC!H1p Opu'1.i 14

F INAN C I AL' \:If Cr CC*LtfL

__..___

Accountsemotes & Mutual Fiords Retirement Bank i; & i

Etesearth & ETFs & Planning tCardsCre.

Trade I Portfolios & Balances Orders & History Account Records I Priority E`TRADE I Power E'TRADE

February 02, 2

Orders & History 47 Aar ® Po_tfdb

'F ort t Account Histuty Heins & Losses Execution ouarantee

t Quick Views: Qp.a-(LQcdeer4 j Executed Orders I nr l O!_dj I cd.Q.idt I ltlfltyWot Fills I aAW Q

Order status : Executed

Date range From : To:[- (mm flyyyy) Order number. .....

Symbols : Order type: Alt

Or Security type: All Results per page: 2Q = J SU

Orders ?t0 ti

Date Order Quantity Security PriceType Type

01/19/05 Sell 11000 TASR Day/ Stop

01/19/05 Buy 1,000 TASR Day/ Limit

01/11/05 Sell 2,500 TASR Day/ Stop

01107/05 Buy 1.000 TASR Day/ Limit

01/06/05 Buy 500 TASR Day! Limit

12109104 Buy 1,000 TASR Day/ Limit

12/08104 San 2,000 TASR Day/ Stop Limit

12107/04 Buy 2,000 TASR Day/ Limit

12107/04 Seth 3,000 TASR flay! Limit

12103/04 EN Buy 1,000 TASR Day! irimit

12/01/04 Buy 2,000 TA$R Day/ Limit

11130/04 Sell 2.000 TASR Day/ Limit

11/30104 Buy 2.000 TASR Day/ Limit

11/29/04 Sell 700 TASR Day/ Limit

11/24/04 Buy 700 TASR Day! Limit

11/24/04 sea 1 ,000 TASR Day! Limit

11/19/04 Sell 1,000 TASK Day! Limit

11119104 BUY 2,000 TASR Day! Limit

t = Share-weighted Average "= Execution Gua

Exec Price Bid Ask Order #Price

17.44 17.50 - - 27f

17.80 17.80 - - :73$

16.10 f 16.14 -- -- ?752

22.57 t 22.57 -• - 2

27.65 t 27.66 - -- ZL4

25.65 25.85 - - 2.f}

26.89 25,89 - - ?

25.80 25.80 - - 2632.

25.94 25.02 - - 2ftZ7

27.98 t 27.98 - - _R

27.45 27.50 - - ?570

27.80 27.80 -- - 20.0

26.68 48.00 -- -- 2526

47.85 47.65 - - 2 ,

50.77 50.77 - - 94.85

51.42 51.42 - - 24.83

5225 52.25 - - 24_40

55.50 55. 50 - 2444

Prepare your Schedule 0 fastl Download your trades into Gainakeeper and minimize your tax prep:C3^1ti+tSh T.t'i , time. j, rn

I .. It . . . . .. . .

U. , incase 3iW-cv-0;472k4 i,QQamwti1L 1 r,Ftl 03/fl9h2i --fie 31 of 38 P. 22


I, Mark Tarich ("Plaintiff'), duly swear and say , as to the claims asserted under the


1. I have reviewed a securities class action complaint styledMark Tarich and Renee

Tarich vr. Taser International, Inc and authorize the filing of a substantially similar complaint

(and any necessary amendment thereto) on Plaintiffs behalf.



3. Plaintiff is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of the class,

including providing testimony at deposition and trial., if necessary.

4. During the Class Period (October 18, 2004 through January 6, 2005), Plaintiffs

transactions in shares in TaserInzernational, Inc., which company is the subject of this action,

were as follows:

Arcuisitio Date N er of, Shares Price Per Share

T'D/2/27/ / fVC7 .. 77.

5. f have / have not sold my shares in Taser International, Inc. as follows:

SAW Date Numb a 9f`Shares Price Per Share

1//q[° /?' 0 F /7. 'I1



ii r u a. U Z, Gas%1:Q5-cv- %SAS.i i D j jt t 4 j. n Filed 031@&2805 - us a 32 of 38 p . :


behalf ofthe class beyond the plaintifPs pro rata share of any recovery, or as ordered or approved


directly relating to the representation of the class.

I declare under penalty ofpetury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this

I.y day of 2005.

.- - - ---it4-2^^- --Mark Tarich

.,., .,, Cas tQ5-cv-02-72DiS1S, . D umeat, t-.u, Fled 03/M2OO6• .Rage 33 of 38

CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTfFFPURSUANT TO FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS

1, Renee Tarich ("Plaintiff"), duly swear and say, as to the claims asserted under the


1. I have reviewed a securities class action complaint styled Mark Tarich and Renee

Tarich vs. Taxer International, Inc. and authorize the tiling of a substantially similar complaint

(and any necessary amendment thereto) on Plaintiffs behalf

2. Plaintiff did not purchase the securities that are the subject ofthis action at the


3. Plaintiff is will ing to serve as a representative party on behalf ofthe class,

including providing testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary.

4. During the Class Period (October 1 8, 2004 through January 6, 2005), Plaintiffs

transactions in sham in Taxer International, Inc., which company is the subject ofthis action,

were as follows:

Acquisition Date Number of Shares Price Per Share

l2 2-r oy Zoo 0 ;7,99

5. 1 have / have not sold my shares in Taser International, Ina as follows:

e at

///)/Vr

Number of Shares

2,000Price Per Share

1-7'0f


r. .cu


Mar 08 , © § CSq§e3 jq5-cv-( q7 S6§ IT PCCM ti n FE160 O AQ 290,5 -- age 34 of 38 P. C-L


behalf of the class beyond the plaintiffs pro rata share ofany recovery, or as ordered or approved


directly relating to the representation oftthe class.

I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this

day of r/ 2005.

aa-,^.04Renee Tarim

Mar ; ©8 0P CMe314Q5-cv'Di 2Q7tSA^%j,t Q® @Bttt n FiUeO 03 W6,L - 35 of 38


I, Emil Toth {"Plaintiff'), duly swear and say, as to the claims asserted under the federal

securities laws, that:

1. I have reviewed a securities class action complaint styled Emil Toth vs. Taser

International, Inc. and authorize the filing of a substantially similar complaint (and any necessary

amendment thereto) on Plaintiffs behalf.

2. Plaintiff did not purchase the securities that are the subject ofthis action at the


3. Plaintiff is willing to serve as a representative party on behalf of the class,

including providing testimony at deposition and trial, if necessary.

4. During the Class Period (October 18, 2004 through January 6, 2005), Plaintiff's

transactions in shares in Taxer International, Inc., which company is the subject of this action,

were as follows:

Acquisition Date Number _of Shares Price are

S ^eG'i jcL .l a`frrePL4A'-^

5. 1 have / have not sold my shares in Taser International Inc as follows:

Sale ate Number _4f Sharma Prier are


V. ara


Mar,08 os cf?%^i5-cv-PAi C-^MTE!14 Lrr#g#dxn ELd OWQQ/ 5-u9age 36 of 38 p. I


behalf ofthe class beyond the plaintiffspro rata share of any recovery, or as ordered or approved


directly relating to the representation ofthe class.

I declare under penalty ofperjuzy that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this

LII+ day of 2005.

Emil TothOf',

Mir oe 05 Qq e35Q5-cv-( fl7"' 11iET lL - I N ftL^ O ZQ45,-o@aW 37 of 38 P. 18

Taser.xis

Taser International Stock Shares Bought and Sold

Acquisition Number of Price per Number of Price PerDate Shares Share

Sale Date Shares Share

10118104 1 C0 384010125(1 1,000 42

1011 1, 38.00 1 1,000 42.00

10128104 1,000 41.00 T W 11)22104 1 QQ 60.00

11102f_4 1,000 dt. 11110104 1,000 55.24

11102104 41. 11104/04 900 43.00

11103104 1,000 41.95 11/10/04 1,000 56.24

11103/04 1,000 41.30 11110104 1,0001 55.24

11103/04 2,000 45.78 111051041 2,00 ..46.45

1110014

11/09/04

1,000

2,006

46.0

53.50

11105104

11/1.0104

1,000

2.000

47.00

65.001

1110SM4 1.040 54.00 11110104 1,004 55.QQ

11110/04 1,^ 54.00 11/10/04 1,000 56/6

11111104 2,000 6'7.65 11/1504

-

2,000 61.00

1111iffiq

1114

1,000

926

56 .00

39.51

11118104

_ 11/22/

1,000

92

OS.361

50.0011114 1,000 59.10 11123/04 1,000 92.50

11/16104

11117/04

2,000!

1,000

2916

56.Ba

11/15104

_ 12/03104

1,004

11000

69.

28.

11117 2,000 2658 12/0 1. 28.65

11117104 4,000 29.47 1210 1, 000 20.15

1 }3104 1,00 27.50 12///9104 1,000 26.4:

121081 1,000 26.1 1

12/07104 1,000 12109/04 '1,000 26.41

1,000

J16

12.107104 1,00 ^_- -

12JO7104 1,1 1.000

1210710 1,000 26.8028.00

Page-9 Shares Acquired-Sold 2/1/2005

. Mar f 08 _aEjCBSe :JeG6-cv-0H =4A& I 871E I NFUecP03/99/ 96 r -gage 38 of 38

Taser.xis

Taser International Options Bought and Sold

NumberAcquisition of Price per

Date Options Share

¶1

Number

Sale Daftof Price per

Options Share

T j l r ^ -r

I- r=t t

P. 1'

Page-1 options Acquired-Sold 2/1/2005