 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Paradigm Technology Inc. Summary: According to a Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended September 30, 1999, defendants responded to the complaint on July 27, 1998 by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted and for various pleading inadequacies. In lieu of opposing the motion, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. Defendants renewed their motion to dismiss, and on January 20, 1999 the Court issued an order granting the motion and dismissing plaintiff's action and entered judgment thereon. On February 3, 1999, the Court entered an amended judgment clarifying that the judgment is with prejudice. On March 12, 1999, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiff then agreed to dismiss the appeal in exchange for defendant's costs incurred in responding to the appeal and agreement not to pursue any action against the plaintiff for having filed the action. The appeal was dismissed with prejudice on October 25, 1999.
The original complaint alleges defendants committed securities fraud by issuing false and misleading press releases and financial statements which misled investors regarding Paradigm's true financial condition and its ability to withstand a downturn in the SRAM market. Specifically, defendants prematurely and improperly recognized revenues on shipments of approximately $2 million worth of products to NexGen, Inc. in the fourth quarter of 1995.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Paradigm Technology Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | PRDM |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://pti.nb.ca |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Dr. Benjamin Tyber, et al. v. Paradigm Technology, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| Tyber, et al. v. Paradigm Technology, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint For Negligent Misrepresentation, Common Law Fraud And Deceit, Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, Violation Cal. Corp Code §§ 25400, 25500 And 1507, And Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1709-1710 | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Bulwa, et al. v. Paradigm Technology, Inc., et al | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 08/12/1996 | ||
| Complaint For Fraud Intentional Misrepresentation; Breach Of Fiduciary Duty; Violation Of California Corporations Code §§25400-25402, 25500-25502, And 25504; Violation Of California Civil Code §§1709-1710 | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Campbell, et al., v. Paradigm Technology, Inc., et al | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 05/19/1997 | ||
| Notice Of Pendency And Proposed Settlement Of Class Action And Settlement Hearing | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Bulwa, et al. v. Paradigm Technology, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 02/15/2001 | ||
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