Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/16/2009 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: March 09, 2001

The original complaint charged defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Oracle supplies software for enterprise information management. The complaint alleged that at the beginning of the class period (which run from 12/15/2000 through 03/01/2001), Oracle represented it would have sequential EPS growth of 9% or $0.12, and revenue of over $2.9 billion for its Q3 2001. The complaint also alleges that defendants assured investors that Oracle's new 11I suite required no programming systems integration to implement the product and that using the product internally saved the company $1 billion. However, defendant Ellison actually knew that the Suite had massive technical problems, (including gaps in its CRM modules, and required expensive systems integration work to implement). Ellison also knew that Oracle's one billion dollar savings was not the result of implementing Oracles' 11I product, but rather, his decision to terminate more than 2,000 employees, many of whom would support Oracles' new software. The complaint continued that throughout Jan. and Feb. 2001, defendants repeatedly stated that Oracle's Q3 2001 estimates were easily achievable, that Oracle's pipeline was never stronger, its applications growth was accelerating, its database and application sales were rapidly growing and that the slowing economy was showing no impact on Oracle's Q3 2001 performance. However, during this period, defendant Ellison sold nearly $900 million worth of his own Oracle shares at prices as high as $32 per share, or 50% higher than the price to which Oracle shares dropped as Oracle's true prospects began to reach the market.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K For the Fiscal Year Ended May 31, 2009, Stockholder class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against us and our Chief Executive Officer on and after March 9, 2001. Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a revised second amended complaint. The last dismissal was with prejudice. On September 1, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The revised second amended complaint named our Chief Executive Officer, our then Chief Financial Officer (who currently is Chairman of our Board of Directors) and a former Executive Vice President as defendants. This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of our stock during the period from December 14, 2000 through March 1, 2001. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements about our actual and expected financial performance and the performance of certain of our applications products, while certain individual defendants were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws. Plaintiffs further alleged that certain individual defendants sold Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public information. Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in accounting violations. On July 26, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment against all defendants and a motion for summary judgment against our Chief Executive Officer. On August 7, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended versions of these motions. On October 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default judgment against defendants or various other sanctions because of defendants’ alleged destruction of evidence. A hearing on all these motions was held on December 20, 2007. On April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On June 27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on plaintiffs’ sanctions motion. On September 2, 2008, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment against all defendants. The order also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. The court denied plaintiffs’ request that judgment be entered in plaintiffs’ favor due to the alleged destruction of evidence, and the court found that no sanctions were appropriate for several categories of evidence. The court found that sanctions in the form of adverse inferences were appropriate for two categories of evidence: e-mails from our Chief Executive Officer’s account, and materials that had been created in connection with a book regarding our Chief Executive Officer. The court then denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against our Chief Executive Officer and directed the parties to revise and re-file these motions to clearly specify the precise contours of the adverse inferences that should be drawn, and to take these inferences into account with regard to the propriety of summary judgment. The court also directed the parties to address certain legal issues in the briefing.

On October 13, 2008, the parties participated in a court-ordered mediation, which did not result in a settlement. On October 20, 2008, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against our Chief Executive Officer. The parties also filed several motions challenging the admissibility of the testimony of various expert witnesses. Opposition briefs were filed on November 17, 2008, and reply briefs were filed on December 12, 2008. A hearing on all these motions was held on February 13, 2009.

On June 16, 2009, the court issued an order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against our Chief Executive Officer, and it entered a judgment dismissing the entire case with prejudice. We expect plaintiffs will appeal. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief.

On July 14, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. On November 16, 2010, the Court entered the opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District Court's opinion was affirmed.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ORCL
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 #: 01-CV-0988
JUDGE: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 03/09/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/15/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/01/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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 ·
  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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 01-CV-0988
JUDGE: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 12/09/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/14/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/01/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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 ·
  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
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date