 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. Conclusion: According to the docket, on March 27, 2000, the Court entered the Minutes granting the motion for voluntary dismissal of the action. Two days later, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Saundra B. Armstrong dismissing action with prejudice. Earlier on April 14, 1999, the Court entered a Letter to Judge Armstrong dated April 12, 1999, from the Plaintiff’s counsel advising defendants of the intention to dismiss the federal action and to proceed in state court.
The complaint charges Diamond and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the California Corporations and Civil Codes by making misrepresentations about Diamond's business, products, earnings growth and financial statements and its ability to continue to achieve profitable growth. The complaint alleges that by issuing these allegedly false and misleading statements, defendants artificially inflated Diamond's stock price to a Class Period high of $43 in December 1995, allowing Diamond and Diamond insiders to sell or otherwise distribute 4 million shares of their Diamond stock for proceeds of more than $115 million, before the true facts about Diamond's troubled operations, diminished profitability and overvalued inventory were revealed and Diamond's stock collapsed to as low as $9-1/8 per share.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3577
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Peripherals
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | DIMD |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.diamondmm.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Frazier, et al. v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 07/24/1996 | ||
| Order Re Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 01/13/1997 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| Frazier, et al. v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate or Other Appropriate Relief; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Diamond MultiMedia Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 02/09/1996 | ||
| Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the Diamond Defendants' Demurrer and Motion to Strike | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Pass, et al., v. Huh, et al | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 09/23/1996 | ||
| Memorandum Supporting Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Pass, et al., v. Huh, et al | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 09/27/1996 | ||
| Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Demurrer and Motion to Strike | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Pass, et al., v. Huh, et al | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 12/02/1996 | ||
| Brief of the Securities Industry Association, the National Venture Capital Association and the American Electronics Association Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Diamond MultiMedia Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court | |||
| Type: Brief | Date on the document: 07/30/1997 | ||
| Order | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Diamond MultiMedia Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 08/21/1997 | ||
| Opinion | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Diamond MultiMedia Sys., Inc. v. Superior Court | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 01/11/1999 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Mayfield, et al v. Huh, et al | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 03/28/2000 | ||
| Notice Of Pendency And Proposed Settlement Of Class And Derivative Actions | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Joanne Pass, et al. v. Hyung Hwe Huh, et al. | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 01/09/2002 | ||
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