Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 01/30/2001 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 01, 1998

The original complaint charges Smart Modular and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants falsely represented that Smart Modular was "experiencing accelerating demand" for its memory modules, its strong EPS reflected the "fundamental . . . strength of the markets we address" and Smart Modular's "growth rate will likely accelerate."

A similar lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California.

On October 9, 1998, District Court Judge James Ware granted the motion to consolidate several cases and further approved the appointment of lead counsel. On November 30, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint on February 9, 1999. After an order to stay the proceedings and several statements of recent decisions filed by the defendants, Judge Ware dismissed the case by Court Order on January 26, 2001. According to the Order the case is dismissed with prejudice. The Order further states that this order is without prejudice to any parallel state law claims and actions asserting only state law claims and the court finds that rule 11 sanctions are not warranted.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Storage Devices
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SMOD
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 #: 98-CV-20692
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 07/01/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/01/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/21/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (former Seattle)
    999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (former Seattle), WA 98104
    206.521.0080 ·
  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
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 98-CV-20692
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 11/30/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/01/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/21/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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 ·
  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
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date