Omega Research, 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

Omega Research, Inc. Conclusion: As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1999, on March 1, 1999, the court dismissed all of the claims in the suit, most with prejudice. The plaintiffs were granted the right to replead, within ten days following the date of the order, the claims that were dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs did not replead any claims, but filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the "Court of Appeals"). On July 1, 1999, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court of Appeals issued a final order which dismissed with prejudice all claims against the Company and all other defendants.

The original complaint alleges that Omega and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 because the prospectus for the company's IPO included material misrepresentations and omissions concerning the company's true financial condition in light of the company's ongoing trend of declining sales of its TradeStation software. The complaint also alleges that the prospectus did not properly disclose the true beneficiaries of a $15 million dividend paid from the proceeds of the offering.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Hardware

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Omega Research, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	OMGA
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.omegaresearch.com/

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Rhodes, et al. v. Cruz, et al.

COURT: S.D. Florida	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-174
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Joan A. Lenard
DATE FILED: 01/28/1998	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/04/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/06/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Burt & Pucillo LLP 515 North Flagler Drive, Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401 (voice) 800.349.4612, (fax) , Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP 276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, New York, NY, 10001 (voice) 212.686.8004, (fax) 212.686.8005, lawyer@lawssb.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/28/1998

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Rhodes, et al. v. Cruz, et al.

COURT: S.D. Florida	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-174
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Joan A. Lenard
DATE FILED: 06/01/1998	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/04/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/06/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Burt & Pucillo LLP 515 North Flagler Drive, Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401 (voice) 800.349.4612, (fax) , Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP 276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, New York, NY, 10001 (voice) 212.686.8004, (fax) 212.686.8005, lawyer@lawssb.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 07/12/1999

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

�