VSI Enterprises, Inc. : Common Stock and Class B Warrants

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

VSI Enterprises, Inc. : Common Stock and Class B Warrants Conclusion: As summarized by the docket posted, on January 29, 1997, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On August 19, 1997, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Willis B. Hunt Jr. granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Further, according to the Order, the judge denied as moot the plaintiffs’ previous motion for appointment of lead plaintiffs and plaintiffs' lead counsel. Judgment was entered that day and the case terminated.

The original complaint alleges that during the class period the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the financial condition of the VSI Enterprises (VSI), which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the VSI's common stock. The complaint alleges that by virtue of this conduct defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "34 Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Complaint also alleges that defendant Richard K. Snelling was a controlling person within the meaning of Section 20 of the 1934 Act and is therefore liable to the plaintiffs on that basis as well. The Complaint seeks compensatory damages along with pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys fees, expert witness fees and other costs.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3663
Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	VSI Enterprises, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	VSIN
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.vsin.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Rosales, et al. v. VSI Enterprises, Inc., et al.

COURT: N.D. Georgia	DOCKET NUMBER: 97-CV-0009
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Willis B Hunt, Jr.
DATE FILED: 01/03/1997	SOURCE: Other
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/06/1995	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/08/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Chitwood & Harley LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309 (voice) 888.873.3999, (fax) 404.873.4476, Lowey, Dannenberg, Bemporad & Selinger, P.C. 1 North Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor, White Plains, NY, 10601-1714 (voice) 914.997.0500, (fax) 914.997.0035, ldbs@wesetnet.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Rosales, et al. v. VSI Enterprises, Inc., et al.

COURT: N.D. Georgia	DOCKET NUMBER: 97-CV-0009
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Willis B Hunt, Jr.
DATE FILED: 01/29/1997	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/06/1995	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/08/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Chitwood & Harley LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309 (voice) 888.873.3999, (fax) 404.873.4476, Lowey, Dannenberg, Bemporad & Selinger, P.C. 1 North Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor, White Plains, NY, 10601-1714 (voice) 914.997.0500, (fax) 914.997.0035, ldbs@wesetnet.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/19/1997

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

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

�