Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/21/1999 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: September 24, 1997

On 10/21/1999, the court entered the Final Judgment & Order by Judge Saundra B. Armstrong dismissing action with prejudice.

According to the firm's 10-Q filing dated 8/16/1999, on May 5, 1999, the Company announced that it reached a preliminary settlement of the Copperstone State Action and the Copperstone Federal Action. The settlement involves payment of an amount comprised of proceeds from the Company's Director and Officer insurance policies. Neither the Company nor the individuals involves in the lawsuit contributed to the settlement of the actions. According to the firm's 10-Q, the settlement did not have a material effect on TCSI's financial position or on its financial results of operations.

The complaint in the Copperstone Federal Action contains virtually identical factual allegations as the Copperstone State Action, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Specifically, the original complaint alleges that defendants artificially inflated TCSI's stock to as high as $29-3/4 per share based on representations that TCSI was enjoying very strong demand for its products that was generating large contracts, resulting in TCSI achieving substantial sequential revenue and earnings gains, which would continue throughout 1996 and 1997. On April 20, 1998, the Court ordered plaintiffs to certify a class.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Networks
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TCSI
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 #: 97-CV-3495
JUDGE: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
DATE FILED: 09/24/1997
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/11/1995
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/25/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. James V. Bashian
    500 Fifth Ave Ste 2800, James V. Bashian, NY 10110
    ·
  2. 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
  3. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
No Document Title Filing Date