Bay Networks, 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

Bay Networks, Inc. Summary: According to the docket posted on the site, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss both of the third amended complaints, writing that "while both TACs do supply more information than the prior pleadings, the barriers defined by the PSLRA and SGI are higher; that was the intent of Congress and the interpretation of the Ninth Circuit; because this is the fourth complaint in this case, and because plaintiffs have been unable to meet the high pleading standards, the dismissal are now with prejudice." On September 11, 2000, plaintiffs appealed the decision to the appellant court. On August 29, 2001, the Circuit Court of Appelas affirmed the decision of the District Court, upholding the dismissal of the case.

According to the closing Order from U.S. District Judge Charles A. Legge of the United States District Court For The Northern District Of California, the Defendants's motion to dismiss was granted; complaints were dismissed with prejudice. The complaint did not state sustainable claim under securities law; statutory particularity and strong inference requirements were not met to show deliberate recklessness or conscious effort to commit fraud.

The original complaint alleges defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud and deceit on all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Bay Networks stock. Defendants' materially false and misleading statements were made in or disseminated from California to the general public. As set forth hereafter, these materially false and misleading statements included statements regarding: (1) Bay's management and organization, including their capabilities and accomplishments; (2) Bay's sales, revenues profits; (2) Bay's products and product development; (3) Bay's competitive market position, and (4) otherwise about Bay's business. These materially false or misleading statements enabled Bay Networks to Complete stock-for-stock acquisitions during the Class Period, and enabled many of the individual defendants to each sell tens of thousands of shares of Bay common stock thereby reaping proceeds of more than $37 million by trading on undisclosed inside information. As a result of the defendants' violations of law the market price of Bay stock during the Class Period was as high as $49.00 per share. Following Defendants' revelations beginning on Oct. 14, 1996, the price of Bay stock fell to as low as $18 5/8 per share.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3661
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Peripherals

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Bay Networks, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	BAY
COMPANY WEBSITE:

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Paul Berger, et al. v. Andrew K. Ludwick, et al.

COURT: N.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 97-CV-728
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Charles A. Legge
DATE FILED: 02/28/1997	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/25/1995	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/14/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA) One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109 (voice) 617.542.8300, (fax) 617.230.0903, info@bermanesq.com Prongay & Borderud 881 Alma Real Drive, Suite 211, Pacific Palisades, CA, 90272 (voice) 310.573.3600, (fax) , Zwerling, Schachter, Zwerling & Koppell LLP 767 Third Avenue , New York, NY, 10017 (voice) , (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/28/1997
Declaration of Kevin P. Muck in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint
Type: Declaration		Date on the document: 05/05/1997
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 05/05/1997
Proof Of Service Re Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 05/08/1997
[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Complaint
Type: Order		Date on the document: 05/09/1997
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 01/14/1999

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In re Bay Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: N.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 97-CV-728
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Charles A. Legge
DATE FILED: 12/15/1999	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/01/1995	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/14/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Third Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (CA) 425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA, 94104 (voice) 415.433.3200, (fax) 415.433.6382, John P. McCarthy 768 North Bethlehem Pike, Suite 200, Lower Gwynedd, PA, 19002 (voice) , (fax) , Prongay & Borderud 881 Alma Real Drive, Suite 211, Pacific Palisades, CA, 90272 (voice) 310.573.3600, (fax) , Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212-223-3900, (fax) 212-371-5969, inquiry@zsz.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Restated Jury Demand
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/20/1997
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 07/25/1997
Declaration of Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., in Support Motion for Class Certification
Type: Declaration		Date on the document: 08/28/1997
Notice Of Motion And Motion For Class Certification, And Plaintiffs' Memorandum In Support Of Motion For An Order: (1) Certifying The Plaintiff Class; (2) Certifying Plaintiffs As Class Representatives; And (3) Appointing Class Counsel
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 08/28/1997
Plaintiffs Request To Take Judicial Notice in Opposition to Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/10/1997
Declaration of Kevin M. Prongay in Opposition to Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Amended Complaint
Type: Declaration		Date on the document: 09/11/1997
Declaration of Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., in Opposition to Defendants' Motion To Dismiss the Amended Complaint
Type: Declaration		Date on the document: 09/19/1997
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to the Motion To Dismiss the Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/19/1997
Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion To Consolidate
Type: Brief		Date on the document: 11/21/1997
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion To Dismiss
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 05/04/1998
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/03/1998
Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/12/1998
Order on Motions to Dismiss
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/15/1998
Declaration of James A. Lico in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 01/31/2000
Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 01/31/2000
Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 01/31/2000
Appendix of Unreported Authority in Support of Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 04/21/2000
[Proposed] Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/21/2000
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/31/2001

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Florida State Board of Administration, et al. v. Bay Networks, Inc., et al .
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/24/1997
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion To Dismiss Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion To Dismiss
Case Name and/or Number: Florida State Board of Administration v. Bay Networks, Inc., et al
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 10/06/1997
Amended Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Florida State Board of Administration v. Bay Networks, Inc., et al
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/17/1997
Declaration of I. Walton Bader With Respect to Defendants' Motion To Consolidate Actions
Case Name and/or Number: Florida State Board of Administration v. Bay Networks, Inc., et al
Type: Declaration		Date on the document: 11/17/1997
Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion To Consolidate
Case Name and/or Number: Florida State Board of Administration v. Bay Networks, Inc., et al
Type: Brief		Date on the document: 11/21/1997
Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Florida State Board of Administration v. Bay Networks, Inc., et al
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/12/1998

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

�