Onyx Acceptance 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

Onyx Acceptance Corporation Summary: According to the Company’s FORM 10-K For The Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2001, in February 2001, an amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice by the District Court, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed this dismissal.

As summarized by the docket posted, on May 3, 2000, the Court entered the Order by Judge Gary L. Taylor granting the plaintiff’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval of his selection of law firms of Rabin & Peckel and the Law Office of Leo W. Desmond as co-lead counsel. On June 22, 2000, the plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, and on August 7, 2000, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On October 30, 2000, the Court entered the Order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. On November 16, 2000, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint, and on December 18, 2000, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

The original Complaint alleges that Onyx and certain of its officers and directors violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of false and misleading statements concerning, among other things, Onyx's reported financial results during the Class Period. In particular, it is alleged that the revenue, net income, and earnings per share reported in these financial statements were materially inflated by valuing certain assets of Onyx in a manner which violated GAAP and require restatement. The Complaint alleges that, as a result of these material false and misleading statements, Onyx's stock price was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6141
Sector: Financial
Industry: Consumer Financial Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Onyx Acceptance Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	ONYX
COMPANY WEBSITE:

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

D. Colin, et al. v. Onyx Acceptance Corporation, et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-00087
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Gary L. Taylor
DATE FILED: 1/25/2000	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 4/28/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 1/26/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202 (voice) 410.332.0030, (fax) , pivenlaw@erols.com Wechsler Harwood LLP 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.935.7400, (fax) , info@whhf.com Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion To Be Appointed Lead Plaintiff And For Approval Of His Selection Of Co-Lead Counsel
Type: Order		Date on the document: 05/03/2000

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

D. Colin, et al. v. Onyx Acceptance Corporation, et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-00087
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Gary L. Taylor
DATE FILED: 11/16/2000	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 4/28/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 1/26/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409 (voice) 888.337.6663, (fax) , Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com Rabin & Peckel LLP 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.682.1818, (fax) 212.682.1892, email@rabinlaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 6/26/2000
Order Granting Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/14/2001
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/19/2002

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

�