Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 01/31/2002 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 12, 1997

According to the docket dated September 13, 2002, the Assignment Committee transferred the case to the U.S. District for the Northern District of California San Francisco division (the case was origibally filed in San Jose division). The case was reassigned to Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton and the Court gave it a new case no. 00-02525. However, there was a parallel ongoing securities class action lawsuit against this company. Both lawsuits were settled and this case was dismissed with prejudice. The decision in this case is connected to a settlement reached in the state court action.

The Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement for the state court action announced the creation of a settlement fund in the amount of $2,750,000 plus interest to settle both the state and federal actions.

The original complaint charges Storm and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Storm issued pursuant to Storm's September 30, 1996 Registration Statement and Prospectus (the "Class").

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Storm told investors that it had recently successfully introduced two new products, the EasyPhoto SmartPage and EasyPhoto Drive, and that volume shipments of, and rapidly accelerating revenues from, these two new products would result in sharply increased revenues and reduced losses for Storm in its 4thQ of 1996, and in Storm achieving huge revenue increases and reaching profitability in 1997, so that Storm would achieve 1997 revenues and earnings per share of $60 million and $.38, respectively.

The complaint alleges that as a result of these positive representations and forecasts, the defendants successfully completed Storm's IPO at $10.50 per share on Sept. 30, 1996 and Storm's stock quickly rose to $17 per share. But then, on Dec. 16, 1996, just 2-1/2 months after Storm's IPO, before Storm had even completed its 1stQ as a public company, Storm revealed its 4thQ 1996 results would be much worse than earlier forecast due to poor sales of the EasyPhoto Drive because of weak demand for that product and poor sales of the EasyPhoto SmartPage because of a lack of availability of large volumes of that product for sale due to mechanical and design defects. Storm's stock immediately dropped to $5-1/8 per share on volume of 1.1 million shares, by far the largest one-day price drop and stock volume for Storm since it went public. Storm's stock then fell to just $1-1/8 per share, as Storm's 1stQ 1997 revenues collapsed to just $2 million, resulting in a huge $6.3 million, or $.60 per share, loss.

The complaint further alleges that Storm abandoned its EasyPhoto Drive, taking over $1.1 million in inventory write-offs for that product, and is mired in ongoing losses and unable to achieve commercial success for its products, revenue growth or reach profitability, in stark contrast to the earlier representation that the EasyPhoto Drive had been successfully launched.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: EASY
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-21101
JUDGE: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
DATE FILED: 12/12/1997
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/30/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/16/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman
    747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, NY 10977
    845.356.2570. 845.356.4335 ·
  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. Robert C. Sussner

    ·
  4. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 00-CV-2525
JUDGE: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
DATE FILED: 05/29/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/30/1996
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/16/1996
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Los Angeles, CA)
    355 S Grand Ave - Ste 4170, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Los Angeles, CA), CA 90071-3172
    213.617.9007 ·
  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
  4. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
    10940 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 2300, Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), CA 90024
    310.209.2468 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date