 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
IMP, Inc. Conclusion: According to the Order, dated August 26, 1998, by U.S. District Judge Spencer Williams, a settlement plan of allocation and the awarding of fees and expenses is approved. The case is dismissed.
In a Press Release dated 9/17/96, the complaint charges IMP and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the California Corporations, Civil and Business & Professions Codes. IMP is a supplier of analog and mixed signal CMOS integrated circuit solutions. Defendants' positive statements, primarily about the strong demand for and growing backlog of IMP's products, which would lead to strong earnings per share growth in Fiscal 1997, drove IMP's stock from less than $7 per share near the beginning of the Class Period to a Class Period high of $23-1/2 per share in early May 1996. This enabled eight of IMP's insiders to sell 1,196,200 shares of their IMP stock at artificially inflated prices as high as $22.31 per share between May 3, 1996 and May 24, 1996, pocketing over $23.7 million for themselves -- with most of IMP's insiders selling large portions of their holdings of IMP stock, immediately after exercising stock options to acquire the shares at just $.81-$2.25 per share -- thus obtaining large, risk-free profits from insider trading. However, shortly after IMP's insiders had completed their stock sales, it was exposed that poor sales of IMP's products, due to weak demand, would result in IMP suffering declining revenues and earnings, requiring the Company to restructure and fire over 10% of its employees, causing its stock to collapse back below $7 per share.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3674
Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | IMP, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | IMPX |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.impweb.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Trevor Roberts, et al. v. IMP, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 10/01/1996 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: IMP, Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Their Motion To Stay Proceedings | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Lee, et al. v. IMP, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 11/12/1996 | ||
| Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Opposition To The IMP Defendants' Motion To Stay State Court Proceedings Or In The Alternative To Stay Merits Discovery | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Lee, et al. v. IMP, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 12/02/1996 | ||
| Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Their Motion To Stay Proceedings | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Lee, et al. v. IMP, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 12/06/1996 | ||
| Notice of Ruling | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Lee, et al. v. IMP, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 12/11/1996 | ||
| Order Denying Motion To Stay Proceedings or in the Alternative To Stay Merits Discovery | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Lee, et al. v. IMP, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 12/23/1996 | ||
| Petition For Peremptory Writ Of Mandate, Prohibition, Certiorari, Or Other Appropriate Relief; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof; Exhibits Filed Separately Herewith | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Lee, et al. v. IMP, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 12/23/1996 | ||
| Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Their Demurrer and Motion To Strike | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Lee, et al. v. IMP, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 01/08/1997 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Garrod, et al v. IMP, INC., et al | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 01/15/1997 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Azad, et al v. IMP, Inc., et al | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 01/15/1997 | ||
| Litigants | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Garrod, et al v. IMP, INC., et al | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 01/15/1997 | ||
| Litigants | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Azad, et al v. IMP, Inc., et al | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 01/15/1997 | ||
| Defendants' Supplemental Response to the Delaware Plaintiffs' Motion for Transfer and Consolidation Under 28 U.S.C. §1407. | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Turner, et al. v. IMP, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 03/28/1997 | ||
| Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Tokayer, et al v. IMP, Inc., et al | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 04/22/1997 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Tokayer, et al v. IMP, Inc., et al | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 05/06/1997 | ||
| Litigants | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Tokayer, et al v. IMP, Inc., et al | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 05/06/1997 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Turner, et al. v. IMP, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 06/09/1997 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Suscavage v. IMP, Inc., et al | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 07/31/1997 | ||
| Litigants | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Suscavage v. IMP, Inc., et al | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 07/31/1997 | ||
| Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Turner, et al. v. IMP Inc, et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 08/06/1997 | ||
| Litigants | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Turner, et al. v. IMP Inc, et al. | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 08/06/1997 | ||
| Order | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Lee, et al. v. IMP, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 08/14/1997 | ||
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