Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/03/2002 (Other)

Filing Date: July 06, 1999

On March 15, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court which dismissed the suit without leave to amend. According to a LexisNexis overview, the "appeals court concluded that the complaint did not allege contemporaneous facts in sufficient detail and in a manner that would create a strong inference that the alleged adverse facts were known at the time of the challenged statements."

The original complaint charges that Vantive and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making numerous false and misleading statements about the Company's financial condition, artificially manipulating the price of the stock. When the truth was uncovered, the stock price fell dramatically. The complaint further alleges that, before the truth about defendants' illegal manipulations was revealed, Company insiders sold approximately 1.3 million of their own shares, reaping over $36 million in illegal, insider trading profits.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: VNTV
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 #: 99-CV-3248
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Orrick
DATE FILED: 07/06/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/23/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/06/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 99-CV-3248
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Orrick
DATE FILED: 11/15/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/23/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/06/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Shepherd & Geller LLC
    117 Gayley Street, Suite 200, Shepherd & Geller LLC, PA 19063
    ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date