Fritz Companies, Inc. Conclusion: According to the latest docket posted, after the U.S. Court of Appeals remanded the case back to District Court, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint on May 23, 2003. On September 2, 2003, the Court entered the Order by Chief Judge Marilyn H. Patel denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend complaint and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended May 31, 2000, the three class action suits filed against the Company in federal court were consolidated into one suit which was dismissed with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs had not alleged any statement that was false and misleading in violation of the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 2, 1999, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court dismissal and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration in light of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in The Silicon Graphics Case.
As previously reported in the Company’s FORM 10-K For The Fiscal Year Ended May 31, 1997, on July 31, 1996, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against the Company and certain of its directors and officers under the caption "Polk v. Lynn C. Fritz, John Johung, Stephen M. Mattessich, Carsten S. Andersen and Fritz Companies, Inc." The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of the class of purchasers of the Company's stock between August 28, 1995 and July 23, 1996 alleges various violations of federal securities laws in connection with prior disclosures made by the Company and seeks unspecified damages. On July 31, 1996, a second complaint containing substantially similar allegations was filed in the same court under the caption "Weiss v. Lynn C. Fritz, John H. Johung, Stephen M. Mattessich, Carsten S. Andersen and Fritz Companies, Inc." On August 13, 1996, a third complaint containing substantially similar allegations was filed in the same court under the caption "E.M. Lawrence Limited Frozen Retirement Trust Dated September 1, 1992 v. Fritz Companies, Inc., Lynn C. Fritz, Carsten S. Andersen, John H. Johung and Stephen M. Mattessich." The three class action suits filed against the Company in state court were dismissed with prejudice by the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco on grounds the claims asserted the California Corporate Securities law and common law fraud were not legally tenable. One of the cases dismissed is being appealed. On April 25, 1997, the three remaining complaints were consolidated into one consolidated amended complaint.
SIC Code: 4731
Industry: Misc. Transportation
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top