 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Oak Technology, Inc. Conclusion: According to the firm's 10-Q filing dated 2/14/2000, the Company and several of its current and former officers and Directors were also parties to four putative class action lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These actions were consolidated as IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. C-96-20552-SW(PVT). This action alleges certain violations of federal securities laws based upon the same allegations as the state court securities litigation. This action also named as a defendant one of the Company's investment bankers. On July 29, 1997, the federal court judge granted the Oak defendants Motion to Dismiss the plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Complaint, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend most claims. The plaintiffs' Second Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed on September 4, 1997. The defendants' Motion to Dismiss was heard on December 17, 1997. The court took the matter under submission. Prior to the issuance of the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice. Defendants requested that the action be dismissed with prejudice. On November 22, 1999, the court dismissed the action without prejudice.
According to the consolidated amended complaint, following the initial public offering of Oak's common stock in February 1995 and the secondary common stock offering on May 11, 1995, defendants embarked on a fraudulent scheme whereby they artificially inflated the price of Oak's common stock. While engaged in their fraudulent scheme, the Individual Defendants sold massive amounts of their personal Oak stock holdings. In all, named defendants sold over 4.2 million shares of their Oak stock at artificially inflated prices and received $104 million in illegal insider trading proceeds before the truth came out and Oak's stock price collapsed. Defendants accomplished this scheme by issuing false and misleading statements and omitting to make statements of material fact necessary in order to make the statements made not misleading.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3674
Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Oak Technology, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | OAKT |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.oaktech.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Bruno, et al. v. Oak Technology, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In re Oak Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Litigants | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Raskin, et al. v. Oak Technology Inc., et al | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 12/21/1996 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Raskin, et al. v. Oak Technology, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 12/21/1996 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Corneille, et al. v. Tsang, et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 12/21/1996 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Zand, et al. v. Hsu, et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 06/04/1997 | ||
| Order | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Oak Technology, et al. v. The Superior Court Of Santa Clara County | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 08/14/1997 | ||
| Consolidated Second Amended Complaint for Damages Based Upon: (1) Violations of Cal. Corp. Code §§25400 and 25500; (2) Violations of Cal. Civ. Code §§1709-1710; | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: In re Oak Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 09/22/1997 | ||
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