Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/15/1999 (Other)

Filing Date: January 28, 1998

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 1999, on March 1, 1999, the court dismissed all of the claims in the suit, most with prejudice. The plaintiffs were granted the right to replead, within ten days following the date of the order, the claims that were dismissed without prejudice. The plaintiffs did not replead any claims, but filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the "Court of Appeals"). On July 1, 1999, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court of Appeals issued a final order which dismissed with prejudice all claims against the Company and all other defendants.

The original complaint alleges that Omega and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 because the prospectus for the company's IPO included material misrepresentations and omissions concerning the company's true financial condition in light of the company's ongoing trend of declining sales of its TradeStation software. The complaint also alleges that the prospectus did not properly disclose the true beneficiaries of a $15 million dividend paid from the proceeds of the offering.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Hardware
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: OMGA
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: S.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 98-CV-174
JUDGE: Hon. Joan A. Lenard
DATE FILED: 01/28/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/04/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/06/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Burt & Pucillo LLP
    515 North Flagler Drive, Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, Burt & Pucillo LLP, FL 33401
    800.349.4612 ·
  2. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  3. Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP
    276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, NY 10001
    212.686.8004 212.686.8005 · lawyer@lawssb.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 98-CV-174
JUDGE: Hon. Joan A. Lenard
DATE FILED: 06/01/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/01/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/06/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Burt & Pucillo LLP
    515 North Flagler Drive, Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, Burt & Pucillo LLP, FL 33401
    800.349.4612 ·
  2. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  3. Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP
    276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, NY 10001
    212.686.8004 212.686.8005 · lawyer@lawssb.com
No Document Title Filing Date