Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/05/2001 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 31, 2000

According from the docket from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on October 10, 2002, the Court of Appeals entered Judgment affirming the previous judgment of the District Court which dismissed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

As summarized by the U.S. District Court docket., on December 21, 2000, the Court entered the Order signed by Judge Milton Pollack granting the motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and approve lead plaintiffs’ selection of lead counsel. That same day, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint, and on March 13, 2001, the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On June 14, 2001, the Court entered the judge’s Opinion #85721 dismissing the Amended Complaint with leave to replead in 20 days. On July 5, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint, and on August 10, 2001, the defendants again filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. On October 3, 2001, the Court entered the judge’s Opinion and Order #86144 dismissing the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice and costs. Judgment was entered and the case was closed. On November 1, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment order.

The original class action complaint alleges that Internet Wire and Bloomberg violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by recklessly disseminating materially false and misleading information concerning Emulex. Specifically, the class action complaint alleges that at or about 9:30 a.m. EST on Friday, August 25, 2000, at the opening of the securities markets, Internet Wire disseminated a bogus "press release" which purported to originate from Emulex, and stated that Emulex's net income would be revised downward, that the Securities and Exchange Commission was conducting an investigation into Emulex's accounting practices, and that Emulex's Chief Executive Officer had resigned. At approximately 10:13 a.m. EST on Friday, August 25, 2000, Bloomberg News falsely reported the alleged resignation of Emulex's CEO and the alleged SEC accounting investigation, and at approximately 10:14 a.m. EST on Friday, August 25, 2000, Bloomberg News falsely reported the alleged restatement of results. As a result of Defendants' false statements, the price of Emulex stock dropped precipitously, from an opening price of $110, to a low of $43 before trading was halted. After it was determined that the "press release" and the information disseminated by the Defendants were "bogus," trading in Emulex securities resumed at 1:30 p.m. on August 25, 2000 with Emulex trading at $120 per share, and the price of Emulex stock closed on August 25, 2000 at $105.75 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Peripherals
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: EMLX
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. New York
DOCKET #: 00-CV-06571
JUDGE: Hon. Milton Pollack
DATE FILED: 08/31/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/25/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/25/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 00-CV-06571
JUDGE: Hon. Milton Pollack
DATE FILED: 07/05/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/25/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/25/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  2. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
    35 East State Street, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, PA 19063
    877.891.9880 · jshah@classactioncounsel.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date