Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 02/29/2000 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 19, 1996

As reported by the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999, in the second quarter of 1999, a settlement in principle was reached and on February 25, 2000, the Court approved a settlement agreement pursuant to which all claims against all defendants will be dismissed and $3.15 million will be paid to the plaintiffs. Under the terms of the Company's D&O insurance policy, the Company's insurer paid 70% of the settlement amount.

Earlier, according to the docket, on July 2, 1998, the Court entered the Stipulation and Order directing the entry of a judgment dismissing claims for relief I and II of the second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 54(b). The Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the District Court’s decision. On March 15, 1999, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was later denied and entered on July 6, 1999. On November 12, 1999, the Court entered the certified copy of the U.S. Court of Appeals Order reversing and remanding the Decision of the District Court. On December 15, 1999, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Charles A. Legge, preliminarily approving the settlement. The Stipulation of Settlement was also filed that day. A settlement hearing was scheduled for February 25, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

On March 24, 1997, the Court entered the Order granting the motion for appointment of lead plaintiffs and appointment of lead plaintiffs’ co-counsel. On April 23, 1997, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend, and entered on July 22, 1997. On September 8, 1997, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the defendants responded with a motion to dismiss on October 9, 1997. On December 9, 1997, the Court entered the court minutes granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court granted the motion to dismiss as to certain individual defendants, denied the motion on the loss and causation claims, granted the motion on the section II cause of action, and granted the motion as to scienter. On March 2, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, and the defendants responded with a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 17, 1998. On May 4, 1998, the Court entered the court minutes denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended complaint.

The original complaint alleged that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule l0b-5 there under and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, interest, fees and costs. The allegations were based on alleged misrepresentations in and omissions from the Company's registration statement and prospectus related to its initial public offering and certain documents filed by the Company under the Exchange Act.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Consumer Financial Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DPNR
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 96-CV-4558
JUDGE: Hon. Charles A. Legge
DATE FILED: 12/19/1996
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/14/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/16/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey & Ellis (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey & Ellis (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 ·
  2. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
    100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 96-CV-4558
JUDGE: Hon. Charles A. Legge
DATE FILED: 03/02/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/14/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/16/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2500, Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco), CA 94105
    415.538.3725 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
    100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date