 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Storm Technology, Inc. Summary: According to the docket dated September 13, 2002, the Assignment Committee transferred the case to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California San Francisco division (the case was origibally filed in San Jose division). The case was reassigned to Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton and the Court gave it a new case no. 00-02525. However, there was a parallel ongoing securities class action lawsuit against this company. Both lawsuits were settled and this case was dismissed with prejudice. The decision in this case is connected to a settlement reached in the state court action.
The Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement for the state court action announced the creation of a settlement fund in the amount of $2,750,000 plus interest to settle both the state and federal actions.
The original complaint charges Storm and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Storm issued pursuant to Storm's September 30, 1996 Registration Statement and Prospectus (the "Class").
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Storm told investors that it had recently successfully introduced two new products, the EasyPhoto SmartPage and EasyPhoto Drive, and that volume shipments of, and rapidly accelerating revenues from, these two new products would result in sharply increased revenues and reduced losses for Storm in its 4thQ of 1996, and in Storm achieving huge revenue increases and reaching profitability in 1997, so that Storm would achieve 1997 revenues and earnings per share of $60 million and $.38, respectively.
The complaint alleges that as a result of these positive representations and forecasts, the defendants successfully completed Storm's IPO at $10.50 per share on Sept. 30, 1996 and Storm's stock quickly rose to $17 per share. But then, on Dec. 16, 1996, just 2-1/2 months after Storm's IPO, before Storm had even completed its 1stQ as a public company, Storm revealed its 4thQ 1996 results would be much worse than earlier forecast due to poor sales of the EasyPhoto Drive because of weak demand for that product and poor sales of the EasyPhoto SmartPage because of a lack of availability of large volumes of that product for sale due to mechanical and design defects. Storm's stock immediately dropped to $5-1/8 per share on volume of 1.1 million shares, by far the largest one-day price drop and stock volume for Storm since it went public. Storm's stock then fell to just $1-1/8 per share, as Storm's 1stQ 1997 revenues collapsed to just $2 million, resulting in a huge $6.3 million, or $.60 per share, loss.
The complaint further alleges that Storm abandoned its EasyPhoto Drive, taking over $1.1 million in inventory write-offs for that product, and is mired in ongoing losses and unable to achieve commercial success for its products, revenue growth or reach profitability, in stark contrast to the earlier representation that the EasyPhoto Drive had been successfully launched.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Storm Technology, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | EASY |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Roberta Goldberg, et al. v. Storm Technology, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In re Storm Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Fraud; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Negligent Misrepresentation; Violation of Cal. Corp. Code ... | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara Case No. CV 764797 | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/14/1997 | ||
| Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Goldberg, et al. v. Storm Technology, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 12/11/1997 | ||
| Notice of Filing of [Proposed] Order Granting Motion for Consolidation for Discovery and Pre-Trial Except Complaint Consolidation Purposes and... | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Goldberg, et al. v. Storm Technology, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 02/13/1998 | ||
| Notice of Filing of Declaration of Lisa C. Atkinson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Consolidation for Discovery and Pre-Trial Except Complaint... | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Goldberg, et al. v. Storm Technology, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 02/13/1998 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Goldberg, et al v. Storm Technology Inc, et al | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 11/03/1998 | ||
| List of Litigants | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Goldberg, et al v. Storm Technology Inc, et al | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 11/29/1999 | ||
| List of Litigants | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Goldberg, et al v. Storm Technology Inc, et al | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 11/29/1999 | ||
| Notice of Pendency And Proposed Settlement Of Class Action | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Goldberg | |||
| Type: Settlement | Date on the document: 02/08/2002 | ||
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