Adaptec, Inc. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Adaptec, Inc. Conclusion: According to the latest docket posted, on March 26, 2002, the Court entered the certified copy of the Order from the U.S. Court Appeals, Second Circuit, dismissing the appeal.

As previously reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2001, the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted with leave to amend in April 2000. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint in July 2000, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. In September 2001, the motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted with prejudice, and the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2001.

The original complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants represented to the investing public that the present and future business and financial prospects of the Company were not only stable but in a stage of explosive growth so that defendants could sell over $34,590,000 of their own holdings in the Company at artificially inflated prices. The complaint further alleges that defendants were only able to exceed analysts' earnings estimates and report quarter-to-quarter earnings growth by failing to take required write-offs associated with accounts receivable and obsolete technology which were required for a proper representation of the Company's operating results. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and/or omissions, Adaptec's stock traded as high as $53 3/16 per share during the Class Period. On Jan. 8, 1998, Adaptec ultimately revealed to the financial community it would suffer an enormous revenue shortfall for its third quarter ended Dec. 31, 1997. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Adaptec common stock plummeted from $35 15/16, on January 8, 1998, to $21 9/16 on January 9, 1998 on volume of 26,982,700 shares -- a drop of 40% in one day and a drop of approximately 60% from the stock's high of $53 3/16 on October 7, 1997.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3576
Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Adaptec, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	ADPT
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.adaptec.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Murphy, et al. v. Adaptec, Inc., et al.

COURT: N.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-00224
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Charles A. Legge
DATE FILED: 01/21/1998	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/29/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/08/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860, Seattle, WA, 98014 (voice) 206.521.0080, (fax) 206.521.0166, lawinfo@cmht.com 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 Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego) 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 215.496.0300, (fax) 215.496.6611, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/21/1998

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Murphy, et al. v. Adaptec, Inc., et al.

COURT: N.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-00224
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Charles A. Legge
DATE FILED: 07/14/2000	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/29/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/08/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860, Seattle, WA, 98014 (voice) 206.521.0080, (fax) 206.521.0166, lawinfo@cmht.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, Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego) 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 215.496.0300, (fax) 215.496.6611, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 12/01/1998
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/26/2002

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Case Name and/or Number: Raiken v. Adaptec, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/26/1998

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

�