Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/24/2001 (Other)

Filing Date: February 24, 2000

According to the docket posted, on March 13, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the February 9, 2001 Amended Order dismissing both federal and state claims. On March 27, 2001, the defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal. On May 24, 2001, the Court entered the Mandate from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Both parties stipulated to voluntary dismiss their appeals.

In a press release dated February 20, 2001, Upgrade International Corp. announced that the U.S.D.C. W.D. Washington has granted the company's motions to dismiss the state law claims in the class action litigation pending before the court. In an order entered Feb. 9, 2001, the Court amended its earlier order dismissing the federal law claims adding the dismissal of the state law claims. The federal law claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice meaning they could be refiled by the plaintiffs in state court.

The lawsuit charges Upgrade and Daniel Bland with violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United States. The lawsuit alleges that defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the Company's business. The complaint alleges that defendants' false and misleading statements artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock during the Class Period.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Peripherals
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: UPGD
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: W.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 00-CV-00298
JUDGE: Hon. Marsha J. Pechman
DATE FILED: 02/24/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/29/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/24/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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: W.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 00-CV-00298
JUDGE: Hon. Marsha J. Pechman
DATE FILED: 07/24/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/29/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/24/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Hagens Berman, LLP
    1301 Fifth Avenue Suite 2900, Hagens Berman, LLP, WA 98101
    206.623.7292 · info@hagens-berman.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date