Novell, Inc. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Novell, Inc. Summary: According to the docket dated May 1, 1998, on March 31, 1997, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge S. Jenkins dismissing plaintiff’s first and second claims for relief with prejudice and dismissing plaintiff’s third, fourth, fifth, and sixth claims for relief without prejudice. The plaintiffs soon after filed a Notice of Appeal. On May 1, 1998, the Court entered the certified copy of the mandate from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the District Court.

The complaint charges Defendants Novell and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 11(a) and 17(a) of the Securities Act, Sections 10 and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and well-established principles of common law, including breach of fiduciary responsibility and misrepresentation.

Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants made a series of misrepresentations in the proxy statement and the accompanying proxy materials that were false and misleading and/or omitted to state material facts. The manner of solicitation of proxies from the Company's shareholders through the use of the proxy materials and the annual report, and the presentation and omission of information therein violated Section 14(a) and Rules 14a-3, 14a-5, and 14a-9 thereunder in that: a. The proxy statement, and most particularly the annual report, were not mailed to the Company's shareholders sufficiently in advance of the shareholder's meeting to enable the shareholders to read and understand the information presented; b. The proxy material did not accurately reflect the condition of the Company at the time the proxy statement was issued, and was not properly updated to reflect intervening events that substantially affected the material set forth in the proxy statement and the annual report; and c. The proxy did not provide meaningful disclosure and was not conducive to informed decision making by the Company's shareholders, in that many of the material facts were not adequately disclosed or were buried in the statements in the annual report so as to make it difficult for the Plaintiff and the class to become aware of those material facts.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7373
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Networks

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Novell, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	NOVL
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http:/www.novell.com/

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Mark Bondiett, et al. v. Novell, Inc., et al.

COURT: D. Utah	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-0303
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Bruce S. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 04/02/1996	SOURCE: Internet
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/12/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/02/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Nelson, Snuffer & Dahle 10885 So. State Street, Sandy, UT, 84070 (voice) , (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/02/1996

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Mark Bondiett, et al. v. Novell, Inc., et al.

COURT: D. Utah	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-0303
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Bruce S. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 12/31/1996	SOURCE: Internet
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/12/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/02/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Nelson Snuffer Dahle & Poulsen 10885 S. State St., Sandy, UT, 84070 (voice) 801.576.1400, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/01/1998

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

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

�