Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/19/2004 (Other)

Filing Date: September 22, 2000

According to the docket posted, on March 19, 2004, the Court entered the true copy of the Order issued from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 15, granting the stipulation of the parties to voluntarily dismiss the notice of appeal.

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10 – Q for the quarterly period ended July 27, 2002, the Company is party to previously disclosed securities litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division and the Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. On March 27, 2002, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims against it and its officers and directors in BERNARD FIDEL, ET AL VS. OFFICEMAX, INC., ET AL., Case No.1:00CV2432 and the four related cases consolidated with the Fidel case (i.e., Case Nos. 1:00CV2558, 1:00CV2562, 1:00CV2606, and 1:00CV2720). The court thereby dismissed, in their entirety, these putative class action cases against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the court to reconsider its dismissal of these cases, which motion was denied by the court on July 26, 2002. On August 26, 2002, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's July 26, 2002 order and the court's March 27, 2002 order.

The original complaint charges OfficeMax and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. OfficeMax operates a chain of several hundred discount office supply superstores or warehouses selling a broad range of office supply products, including computers. The complaint alleges that beginning on 3/2/99, when OfficeMax reported its 4thQ fiscal 1998 ("F98") results, OfficeMax, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer made false and misleading statements about the successful realignment of OfficeMax's business model, the strong performance and positive momentum of OfficeMax's Core Business Segment (which sold office supplies, furniture and business machines excluding computers) and the Core Business Segment's improving profitability due to its enlarged merchandise assortment and effective inventory management. These bullish representations and forecasts artificially inflated OfficeMax's stock to a Class Period high of $12-1/8 on 5/18/99 from $7-5/8 just before the Class Period began. But then, on 9/30/99, OfficeMax revealed that its 2ndH F99 and F00 financial results were going to be much worse than earlier forecast. OfficeMax's stock fell by over 32% in two days to $5, the largest two-day percentage price decline in OfficeMax's history as a public company, on trading volume of over 10 million shares, and then continued to fall to as low as $4-1/2 per share, its lowest price ever, a drop from which it has not recovered.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Specialty)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: OMX
Company Market: New York SE
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. Ohio
DOCKET #: 00-CV-02432
JUDGE: Hon. Kathleen M. O'Malley
DATE FILED: 09/22/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/02/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/30/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Landskroner - Grieco, Ltd.
    1360 West 9th St., Suite 200, Landskroner - Grieco, Ltd. , OH 44113-1904
    866.522.9500 · jack@landskronerlaw.com
  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. 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. Ohio
DOCKET #: 00-CV-02432
JUDGE: Hon. Kathleen M. O'Malley
DATE FILED: 04/27/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/02/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/30/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. The Landskroner Law Firm, Ltd.
    55 Public Square, Suite 1040, The Landskroner Law Firm, Ltd., OH 44113
    216.241.7000 ·
No Document Title Filing Date