 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
NVIDIA Corporation Conclusion: According to a press release dated August 22, 2003, NVIDIA Corporation announced that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has approved the dismissal of the consolidated securities class action lawsuit against NVIDIA. The court's action follows its ruling on June 12, 2003 dismissing with prejudice all of the claims arising from NVIDIA's restatement of its financial results. Plaintiff's requested the dismissal of their remaining claims and the court ordered the dismissal with prejudice as to the lead plaintiffs. As previously announced, this lawsuit arose out of NVIDIA's announcement on February 14, 2002 that it was conducting an internal investigation of certain accounting matters and its subsequent net positive restatement of financial statements for the periods February 15, 2000 through February 14, 2002.
The original complaint charges NVIDIA and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NVIDIA designs, develops and markets three dimensional (3D) graphics processors and related software. The company's products provide interactive 3D graphics to the mainstream personal computer market. The complaint alleges that as part of their effort to boost the price of NVIDIA stock, defendants misrepresented NVIDIA's true prospects in an effort to conceal NVIDIA's improper acts until they were able to sell at least $66 million worth of their own NVIDIA stock. In order to overstate revenues and assets in its 4Q 00, 1Q 01, 2Q 01 and 3Q 01, NVIDIA violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and SEC rules by engaging in an illegal accounting scheme. This scheme had the effect of dramatically overstating revenues and assets. Then, on Feb. 14, 2002 (after the close of the market), the company partially admitted that its past accounting for its prior results may be inaccurate in a press release entitled, ``NVIDIA Corporation Conducting Review of Certain Transactions at the Request of the SEC.'' On this news the company's shares plummeted the following day.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3674
Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | NVIDIA Corporation |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | NVDA |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.nvidia.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Castaldo, et al., v. NVIDIA Corporation, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Order Granting Motion To Consolidate Related Actions And Preserve Documents And Order Granting Motion To Appoint Metzler Investment Group GMBH And Garrett Zwartas Lead Plaintiff And Approving Lead Plaintiff's Choice Of Co-Lead Counsel | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 06/11/2002 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 09/10/2002 | ||
| First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 07/28/2003 | ||
| Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Of Dismissal | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 08/19/2003 | ||
| Order Granting Stipulation Of Dismissal | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 08/21/2003 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 08/28/2003 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Law | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Potash | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 02/22/2002 | ||
| Certification By Lawyer Seeking To Serve As Class Counsel [Local Rule 3-7(d)] | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Blakey | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 03/01/2002 | ||
| Certification Of Interested Entities Or Persons | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Blakey | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 03/01/2002 | ||
| Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Blakey | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/01/2002 | ||
| Complaint For Violations Of Securities Laws | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Weintraub | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/01/2002 | ||
| Notice To Preserve Documents Pursuant To Local Rule 16-1(g)(4) | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Blakey | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 03/01/2002 | ||
| Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Stein | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 04/05/2002 | ||
| Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws And State Law Claims For Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, Abuse Of Control, Constructive Fraud, Corporate Waste, Unjust Enrichment, Gross Mismanagement And Action For Accounting | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: The Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust, et al. v. Jen-Hsun Huang, et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 09/29/2006 | ||
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