 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Red Brick Systems, Inc. Conclusion: According to the latest docket posted, on January 18, 2000, the Court received a notice of dismissal submitted by the plaintiff. On January 21, 2000, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins dismissing the case.
Previously, on September 2, 1998, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, and on October 7, 1998, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint. On May 4, 1999, the Court entered the Order by Judge Martin J. Jenkins granting motion to dismiss amended class action complaint with leave to amend the complaint. On August 23, 1999, a First Amended Complaint was filed, and on December 3, 1999, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.
The original complaint charges Red Brick Systems Inc. (NMS: REDB) and four of its top officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that Red Brick improperly recognized revenues, and at the same time improperly deferred expenses, with respect to the December 1996 quarter. Both of these actions violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"), according to the complaint. On Jan. 15, 1997, the Company announced record results for the December quarter and 1996. Shortly thereafter, during the Class Period, the four individual defendants, all Company insiders, sold 159,500 shares from their personal holdings, at prices ranging between $22 and $24 per share, for proceeds in excess of $3.6 million. With the April 15, 1997 disclosure of results for the March 1997 quarter, Red Brick's stock fell on heavy trading volume to approximately $6 1/4 per share, nearly 71% below its high during the Class Period.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Red Brick Systems, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | REDB |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.redbrick.com/ |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Clegg, et al. v. Red Brick Systems, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: Red Brick Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Levine v. Red Brick Systems, et al | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/25/1998 | ||
| CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 98-CV-1207 | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Levine v. Red Brick Systems, et al | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 07/07/1998 | ||
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