Polyphase Corporation - 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

Polyphase Corporation Conclusion: According to the Polyphase Corporation's FORM 10-K filed in the SEC for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002, on remand from the Court of Appeals, the case was set for trial to commence in March 2003. In the days immediately prior to the scheduled trial date, the defendants offered to settle all claims advanced in the litigation in consideration of an aggregate payment of $13,000. In June 2003, the defendants paid $13,000 to the plaintiffs collectively, and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, preventing the plaintiffs from refiling or advancing similar claims in the future.

During fiscal 1997, five substantially identical complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The defendants filed motions to dismiss in each of the lawsuits. Without certifying the cases as class actions, the District Court consolidated several of the cases into a single action. In March 2000, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against one of the Company's officers and directors and restricted the plaintiffs from pursuing a number of their claims against the other defendants. The Court also granted the remaining defendants leave to renew their motions to dismiss in the form of motions for summary judgment. After pretrial discovery by plaintiffs, the remaining defendants filed motions for summary judgment, pointing out that there was no evidence to support the plaintiffs' claims. In November 2000, in a lengthy decision addressing the plaintiffs' claims against each of the remaining defendants, the District Court granted the motions for summary judgment, thereby disposing of all of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for rehearing, which the District Court denied in March 2001. The plaintiffs appealed those decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In September 2001, the plaintiffs requested the Ninth Circuit to enjoin the Company's proposed spin-off of Overhill Farms. The Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request and directed them to address their request to the District Court. The plaintiffs thereafter filed an application with the District Court, which restrained the spin-off for a few days until a hearing could be conducted. Following an October 11, 2001 hearing at which counsel for all parties appeared, the District Court dissolved its temporary restraining order, thereby allowing the Company to proceed with the proposed spin-off. The plaintiffs did not appeal that decision by the District Court. On June 5, 2002, the Ninth Circuit rendered a decision that affirmed several of the trial court's rulings but reversed other rulings and remanded portions of the case for further proceedings in the District Court. Among other things, the Court of Appeals remanded certain claims against the Company and four individual defendants for further consideration by the trial court. Both sides then filed petitions for rehearing, and on July 18, 2002, the appellate court revised certain statements in its original opinion.

The original complaint alleges that Polyphase and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Nevada state common law for fraud and deceit and negligent misrepresentation by overstating the company's financial results for fiscal 1996. The complaint further alleges that defendants failed to disclose that Polyphase was in breach of certain covenants contained in various lending agreements valued at approximately $31 million. The complaint alleges that these debts were placed in default by the company's lenders and became immediately due, requiring the company to reclassify such debts as current liabilities and prompting the company's auditors to question the company's ability to survive as a going concern. The complaint further alleges that noncompliance of the loan agreements caused the suspension of the company's stock from trading for over five months.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 5082
Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Food Processing

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Polyphase Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	PLY
COMPANY WEBSITE:

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Stanley Peltz, et al. v. Polyphase Corporation, et al.

COURT: D. Nevada	DOCKET NUMBER: 97-CV-0791
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Roger L. Hunt
DATE FILED: 6/27/1997	SOURCE: Other
CLASS PERIOD START: 5/21/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 6/16/1997
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Beatie & Osborne LLP 599 Lexington Avenue, 42nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.888.9000, (fax) 212.888.9664, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY) The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126 (voice) 212.682.3025, (fax) 212.682.3010, info@wyca.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/02/2003

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

�