 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Firefox Communications, Inc. Summary: According to the docket, on May 24, 2000, the Court entered the Order and Judgment by Senior Judge Spencer Williams dismissing case with prejudice. The plaintiff soon after filed a Notice of Appeal and on June 4, 2001, the Court entered the certified copy of the US Court of Appeals Order affirming the decision of the District Court.
Earlier, on May 6, 1997, Senior Judge Spencer Williams granting motion to dismiss first amended complaint without leave to amend. The Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on June 3, 1997, and, on January 3, 2000, the Court entered the Judgment from the USCA remanding the matter back to the District Court.
On February 23, 1996, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, naming Firefox and certain of its officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts about Firefox's operations and financial results, which the plaintiffs contend resulted in an artificial inflation of the price of the Firefox Common Stock. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Firefox Common Stock during the period from August 3, 1995 to January 2, 1996. The complaint alleges claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that each of the defendants knew or had access to allegedly material adverse non-public information about Firefox's financial results and business conditions which allegedly was not disclosed and participated in drafting, reviewing and/or approving alleged misleading statements, releases, reports and other public representations of and about Firefox.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Firefox Communications, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | FFOX |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.ftp.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Zeid, et al. v. Kimberley, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| Zeid, et al. v. Kimberley, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 07/19/2000 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 08/16/2001 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| U.S. Court of Appeals Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Zeid, et al. v. Kimberley, et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 04/10/2000 | ||
| U.S. Court of Appeals Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Zeid, et al. v. Kimberley, et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 03/01/2002 | ||
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