| |
Versant Object Technology Corporation
Summary: According to the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2002, on December 13, 2001, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 2, 2002, the plaintiffs, now as appellants, filed an opening brief alleging the dismissal was in error and should be reversed. The Company filed its answering brief on July 12, 2002, and the appellants filed their reply brief on August 9, 2002. Oral arguments were heard on January 14, 2003 and on January 23, 2003 the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal.
Previously, according to the same SEC filing, the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in four class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 26, 1998, February 5, 1998, March 11, 1998 and March 18, 1998. On June 19, 1998, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed by the court-appointed lead Plaintiff. After the court dismissed two amended complaints, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on May 10, 2001 that alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act, in connection with public statements about Versant and its financial performance. On December 4, 2001, the court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim of their securities fraud action.
The original Complaint alleges that defendants participated in a scheme or common course of conduct to artificially inflate Versant's stock price so that they could maintain their lucrative positions and so that they could dispose of a portion of their own holdings at artificially inflated prices. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' false statements, misrepresentations, and omissions, the price of Versant's common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period and that Versant's stock was then maintained at an artificially inflated level until the defendants disclosed the dismal financial condition of the Company on or about January 13, 1998. These disclosures caused the stock price of Versant to plummet from $9 3/8, on January 12, 1998, to $5 1/8 on January 13, 1998 on volume of 2,528,700 shares, a drop of 45% in one day and a drop of over 70% from the stock's high of $18 1/4 on October 21, 1997.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE |
| Wilkes, et al. v. Versant Object Technology Corporation, et al. |
| COURT: N.D. California | DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-0299 |
| JUDGE NAME: Hon. Claudia Wilken |
| DATE FILED: 01/26/1998 | SOURCE: Business Wires | | CLASS PERIOD START: 04/28/1997 | CLASS PERIOD END: 01/13/1998 | | TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated | | PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE: |
Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126
(voice) 212.682.3025, (fax) 212.682.3010, info@wyca.com
_____________________________________________
TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1 | |
REFERENCE COMPLAINT | | In Re: Versant Object Technology Corporation Securities Litigation | | COURT: N.D. California | DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-0299 | | JUDGE NAME: Hon. Claudia Wilken | | DATE FILED: 05/10/2001 | SOURCE: Business Wires | | CLASS PERIOD START: 04/28/1997 | CLASS PERIOD END: 01/13/1998 | | TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Third Amended | | PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT: |
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego)
402 West Broadway , San Diego, CA, 92101
(voice) 619.230.0800, (fax) 619.230.1874, info@barrack.com
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY)
10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016
(voice) 800.217.1522, (fax) , info@bernlieb.com
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111
(voice) 415.288.4545, (fax) 415.288.4534,
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101
(voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com
_____________________________________________
TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4 | |
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | | Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 |
| Case Name and/or Number: Geffen, et al., v. Versant Object Technology Corp., et al |
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 02/05/1998 | | Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 |
| Case Name and/or Number: Luu v. Versant Object Technology, et al |
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/11/1998 | | Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 |
| Case Name and/or Number: Arnouville v. Versant Object Technology, et al |
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/18/1998 | | Declaration of Craig D. Martin in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint |
| Case Name and/or Number: Geffen, et al., v. Versant Object Technology Corp., et al |
| Type: Declaration | Date on the document: 03/23/1998 | | Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities |
| Case Name and/or Number: Geffen, et al., v. Versant Object Technology Corp., et al |
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 03/23/1998 | | Declaration Of John K. Grant In Support Of Geffen Group's Notice Of Motion, Motion, And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion To Be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant To §21D(a)(3)(B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 And For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiffs' Selection Of Co-Lead Counsel |
| Case Name and/or Number: Geffen, et al., v. Versant Object Technology Corp., et al |
| Type: Declaration | Date on the document: 03/30/1998 | | Declaration Of John K. Grant In Support Of Geffen Group's Notice Of Motion, Motion, And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion To Be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant To §21D(a)(3)(B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 And For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiffs' Selection Of Co-Lead Counsel |
| Case Name and/or Number: Luu v. Versant Object |
| Type: Declaration | Date on the document: 03/30/1998 | | Declaration Of John K. Grant In Support Of Geffen Group's Notice Of Motion, Motion, And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion To Be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant To §21D(a)(3)(B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 And For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiffs' Selection Of Co-Lead Counsel |
| Case Name and/or Number: Arnouville v. Versant Object Technology, et al |
| Type: Declaration | Date on the document: 03/30/1998 | | Geffen Group's Notice Of Motion, Motion, And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion To Be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant To §21D(a)(3)(B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 And For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiffs' Selection Of Co-Lead Counsel |
| Case Name and/or Number: Geffen, et al., v. Versant Object Technology Corp., et al |
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 03/30/1998 | | Geffen Group's Notice Of Motion, Motion, And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion To Be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant To §21D(a)(3)(B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 And For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiffs' Selection Of Co-Lead Counsel |
| Case Name and/or Number: Luu v. Versant Object Technology |
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 03/30/1998 | | Geffen Group's Notice Of Motion, Motion, And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion To Be Appointed Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant To §21D(a)(3)(B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 And For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiffs' Selection Of Co-Lead Counsel |
| Case Name and/or Number: Arnouville v. Versant Object Technology, et al |
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 03/30/1998 | | Notice of Motion and Motion To Consolidate Cases for All Purposes and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof |
| Case Name and/or Number: Geffen, et al., v. Versant Object Technology Corp., et al |
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 03/30/1998 | | Notice of Motion and Motion To Consolidate Cases for All Purposes and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof |
| Case Name and/or Number: Luu v. Versant Object Technology |
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 03/30/1998 | | Notice of Motion and Motion To Consolidate Cases for All Purposes and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof |
| Case Name and/or Number: Arnouville v. Versant Object Technology, et al |
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 03/30/1998 | | CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 98-CV-1079 |
| Case Name and/or Number: Arnouville v. Versant Object Technology, et al |
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/11/1998 | | CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 98-CV-969 |
| Case Name and/or Number: Luu v. Versant Object Technology, et al |
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/11/1998 | | Litigants |
| Case Name and/or Number: Luu v. Versant Object Technology, et al |
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 05/11/1998 | | Litigants |
| Case Name and/or Number: Arnouville v. Versant Object Technology, et al |
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 05/11/1998 | | CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 98-CV-440 |
| Case Name and/or Number: Geffen, et al., v. Versant Object Technology Corp., et al |
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/15/1998 | | Litigants |
| Case Name and/or Number: Geffen, et al., v. Versant Object Technology Corp., et al |
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 05/15/1998 |
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
|
