 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Read-Rite Corporation 1997 Summary: According to the latest docket posted, on March 25, 2003, the Court entered the certified copy of the Order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the notice of appeal filed by the Ferrari Plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Ferrari Plaintiffs’ appeal. On July 29, 2003, the Court entered the certified copy of the judgment from the Second Circuit regarding the Nevius Plaintiffs' notice of appeal. According to the judgment, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court.
As reported by the Company’s FORM 10-K For The Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2000, on December 22, 1997, the Court consolidated the Ferrari Federal Action and the Nevius Federal Action (the "Consolidated Federal Action"). On March 2, 2000, the court dismissed the Ferrari Plaintiffs' claims without leave to amend, and dismissed the Nevius Plaintiffs' claims with leave to amend. On October 13, 2000, the court ordered that the Ferrari Plaintiffs' and Nevius Plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed without leave to amend and that the action be dismissed with prejudice. The Nevius Plaintiffs and Ferrari Plaintiffs filed notices of appeal on October 27, 2000 and November 9, 2000, respectively.
On January 21, 1997, a similar class action was filed against Read-Rite Corporation, McDaid, et al v. Read-Rite Corporation, et al. According to the civil docket, for that case, 3:98-CV-00164, on March 6, 1998, the court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte ordering the case to be consolidated with the 1997 lead case, 3:97-CV-4389.
On May 19, 1997, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by James C. Nevius and William Molair against the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Nevius Federal Action"). The Nevius Federal Action alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business condition and prospects during a purported class period of March 2 to June 19, 1996, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.
On January 16, 1997, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Ferrari and Goldman against the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Ferrari Federal Action"). The complaint in the Ferrari Federal Action alleges that during a purported class period of April 19, 1995 to January 22, 1996, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business condition and prospects. The Ferrari Federal Action contains similar factual allegations as the Ferrari State Action, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.
On December 11, 1996, the first purported class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, by Joan D. Ferrari and Mark S. Goldman against the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Ferrari State Action").
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3572
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Storage Devices
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Read-Rite Corporation 1997 |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | RDRT |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.readrite.com/ |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Ferrari, et al. v. Read-Rite Corporation, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: Read-Rite Corporation Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Complaint for Violations of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: McDaid, et al. v. Read-Rite Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 01/21/1997 | ||
| Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Nevius, et al. v. Read-Rite Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 05/19/1997 | ||
| Plaintiff's Notice of Motion , Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion For Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Plaintiffs' Selection of Lead Counsel | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Nevius, et al. v. Read-Rite Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 07/18/1997 | ||
| Declaration of Solomon B. Cera | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Nevius, et al. v. Read-Rite Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Declaration | Date on the document: 08/01/1997 | ||
| Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Consolidate Actions | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Nevius, et al. v. Read-Rite Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 08/01/1997 | ||
| [Proposed] Order Appointing Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant To §21D(a) (3) (B) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 And Appointing Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Nevius, et al. v. Read-Rite Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 08/01/1997 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: McDaid, et al. v. Read-Rite Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 03/16/1998 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Nevius, et al. v. Read-Rite Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 08/06/1998 | ||
| US Court of Appeals Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Ferrari, et al. v. Read-Rite Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 04/16/2003 | ||
| U.S. Court of Appeals Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Nevius, et al. v. Read-Rite Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 10/06/2003 | ||
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