V-One 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

V-One Corporation Conclusion: According to an article in the Washington Business Journal dated February 23, 2001, the has dismissed a class action lawsuit against V-One. In the suit filed against V-One, shareholders alleged the company's officers manipulated stock values by strategically issuing press releases that linked its products with the Linux operating system, which at the time was enjoying a surge in popularity. U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the company had violated securities laws and dismissed the suit "with prejudice." Costs were awarded to V-One.

The original Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5). The action arises from damages incurred by the Class as a result of a scheme and common course of conduct by defendants which operated as a fraud and deceit on the Class during the Class Period. Defendants' scheme included rendering false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the present and future financial condition and business prospects of the Company, as well as the financial benefits that would enure to V-One and its shareholders.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 5045
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Networks

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	V-One Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	VONE
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.v-one.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

George McMeen, et al. v. V-One Corporation, et al.

COURT: D. Maryland	DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-00263
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Marvin J. Garbis
DATE FILED: 1/27/2000	SOURCE: Notice
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/30/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/30/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York) 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/24/2000

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

George McMeen, et al. v. V-One Corporation, et al.

COURT: D. Maryland	DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-00263
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Marvin J. Garbis
DATE FILED: 7/14/2000	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/30/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/30/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles) 10940 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA, 90024 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) , Tydings & Rosenberg LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD, 21202 (voice) 410.752.9700, (fax) 410.757.5460, webmaster@tydingslaw.com Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA) 10940 Wilshire Blvd - 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90024 (voice) 310.208.2800, (fax) 310.209.2348, info@wyca.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint For Violation Of Tied Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 7/14/2000
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/23/2001

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Patel, et al. v. V-One Corporation, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/16/2000

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

�