Symantec 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

Symantec Corporation Conclusion: According to the docket dated October 26, 1999, the parties reached an agreement to settle. The Stipulation of Settlement dated August 23, 1999 outlines the terms of the settlement. On October 26, 1999, Order by Judge Jeremy Fogel granted motion in support of motion for approval of plan of allocation, and granted motion in support of application for attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses. The court also issued the Final Judgment dismissing the case.

The original complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Symantec stock. As set forth hereafter, these false and misleading statements included statements about (1) Symantec's new Windows 95-related utility software products known as Norton Navigator, Norton AntiVirus and Norton Utilities; (2) Symantec's Enterprise products; (3) Symantec's sales in Europe; and (4) other aspects of Symantec's business. Furthermore, Symantec's financial statements for its first and second quarters of fiscal 1996 (ended June 30 and September 29, 1995) were false and misleading in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Symantec Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	SYMC
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.symantec.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Joseph R. Molinari, Jr., et al. v. Symantec Corporation, et al.

COURT: N.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 97-CV-20021
JUDGE NAME: Hon. William A. Ingram
DATE FILED: 01/07/1997	SOURCE: Internet
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/09/1995	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/08/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY) 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.687.1980, (fax) 212.687.7714, info@kaplanfox.com Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/06/1997
Notice Of Motion, Motion And Memorandum In Support Of Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), 12(b)(6))
Type: Other		Date on the document: 03/24/1997
Notice Of Motion, Motion And Memorandum In Support Of Separate Motion Of Defendants Boesenberg, Wang, Taylor, Laing And Witte To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), 12(b)(6))
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 03/24/1997
Notice of No Opposition to Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for Approval of Lead Plaintiffs' Choice of Counsel
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 04/01/1997
Declaration of David C. Walton
Type: Declaration		Date on the document: 04/21/1997
Declaration of Helen J. Hodges in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
Type: Declaration		Date on the document: 04/21/1997
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
Type: Other		Date on the document: 04/21/1997
Reply Brief In Support Of Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), 12(b)(6))
Type: Brief		Date on the document: 05/12/1997
Reply Memorandum In Support Of Separate Motion Of Defendants Boesenberg, Wang, Taylor, Laing And Witte To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934
Type: Other		Date on the document: 05/12/1997
Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Strike Certain Evidence Offered by Defendants on Their Motions to Dismiss and Opposition to Counter-Motion to Strike
Type: Other		Date on the document: 05/19/1997
Notice and Cross-Motion to Strike Certain Evidence Offered By Defendants on Their Motions to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support Thereof
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 06/23/1997
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Submission Of Authority Pursuant To Local Rule 7-3(e)
Type: Other		Date on the document: 12/08/1997
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Submission Of Authority Pursuant To Local Rule 7-3(e)
Type: Other		Date on the document: 02/10/1998
Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/17/1998
Order Re: Statement Chart
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/17/1998

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Joseph R. Molinari, Jr., et al. v. Symantec Corporation, et al.

COURT: N.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 97-CV-20021
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
DATE FILED: 04/17/1998	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/09/1995	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/08/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109 (voice) (617) 542-8300, (fax) , Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY) 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.687.1980, (fax) 212.687.7714, info@kaplanfox.com Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Los Angeles, CA) 355 S Grand Ave - Ste 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071-3172 (voice) 213.617.9007, (fax) , Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
First Amended Complaint For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/17/1998
Appendix of Authorities in Support of Defendants' Motions To Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/11/1998
Declaration of Michael L. Charlson in Support of Defendants' Motions To Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 06/11/1998
Defendants' Notice, Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Portions of Plantiffs' First Amended Complaint
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 06/11/1998
Notice Of Motion, Motion And Memorandum In Support Of Defendants'Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint For Violation Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 06/11/1998
Notice, Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motions of Defendants Boesenberg, Wang, Taylor, Laing and Witte To Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 06/11/1998
Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Defendants' Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/11/1998
Declaration Of Kimberly C. Epstein In Support Of Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Opposition To Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
Type: Declaration		Date on the document: 07/31/1998
Notice Of Cross-Motion And Cross-Motion To Strike Certain Evidence Offered By Defendants On Their Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 07/31/1998
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 07/31/1998
Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Opposition To Defendants' Motion To Strike Portions Of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 07/31/1998
Plaintiffs' Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Opposition To The Separate Motion Of Defendants Boesenberg, Wang, Taylor, Laing And Witte To Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 07/31/1998
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Strike Certain Evidence Offered by Defendants
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 09/08/1998
Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/08/1998
Reply Memorandum In Of Separate Motion Of Defendants Boesenberg, Wang, Taylor, Laing And Witte To Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/08/1998
Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/08/1998
Supplemental Appendix of Authorities in Support of Defendants' Motions To Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/08/1998
Statement of Additional Recent Decision re: Motions to Dismiss Complaint
Type: Other		Date on the document: 08/11/1999
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/26/1999
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/26/1999

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

�