 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
California Amplifier, Inc. Conclusion: The complaint charged California Amplifier and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that during the Class Period, defendants artificially inflated California Amplifier stock by making false representations that California Amplifier was effectively competing in a rapidly growing industry, was enjoying very strong demand for its products, especially its international products, had successfully introduced its basic MultiCipher(TM) product which was enjoying strong sales (including a major sale in Thailand that would result in millions of dollars of follow-on business), was successfully developing its MultiCipher Plus(TM) product for introduction during Fiscal 1997, and expected large orders from wireless cable systems in Australia and Saudi Arabia -- all of which would result in California Amplifier achieving substantial sequential gross profit margin, revenue and earnings per share growth throughout Fiscal 1997 and Fiscal 1998, to end March 1, 1997 and February 28, 1998. However, after reporting slightly declining sales, net income and EPS in mid-June 1996, in early August 1996, California Amplifier shocked the market by admitting that it was suffering losses due to weakening demand and poor sales, long delays in receiving orders from Australia and Saudi Arabia, delays in introducing its updated MultiCipher Plus scrambling product and no follow-on orders for MultiCipher from Thailand.
According to the docket, on November the 23, 1999, the Court entered the Mandate of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the District Court. The plaintiff earlier filed the appeal on October 19, 1998, after the Court issued an Order and subsequent Judgment and Order in favor of the defendants and terminated the case.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3663
Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | California Amplifier, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | CAMP |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.calamp.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Norman Yourish, et al. vs. California Amplifier, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 06/11/1997 | ||
| Order Granting The Yourish Group's Motion To Be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant To 21D(a)(3)(B) Of Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 And For Approval Of Lead Plaintiffs' Choice Of Lead Counsel | |||
| Type: Order Appointing LP/LC | Date on the document: 09/08/1997 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 11/19/1999 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Notice Of Proposed Settlement Of Class Action | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Yourish, et al. vs. California Amplifier, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 07/28/2000 | ||
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