Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/19/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 19, 2004

On April 18, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal from the December 30, 2006 Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and the March 19, 2007 Judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. The Notice of Appeal is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to the Judgment signed by U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins, on March 15, 2007, on December 30, 2006, the Court issued an Order dismissing the Amended Complaint without prejudice with leave to amend. On February 15, 2007, the Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of his election to instead stand on his Amended Complaint, and requested that final judgment be entered so that appeal can be taken therefrom.

By the Order issued on December 30, 2006, the Court grants Defendants’ Motions and dismisses Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff must file any Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the filing date of this Order.

On September 23, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. On November 7, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint.

By the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkin on August 10, 2005, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, without prejudice. Plaintiff must file an amended complaint within forty-five days of the date of this Order. The failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the action with prejudice.

The original Complaint alleges that Golden State Vintners and certain of its directors and officers violated Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false statements in a December 23, 2003 merger proxy statement in order to keep the price of Golden State Vintners securities artificially low and thus facilitate the company's takeover by the O'Neill Acquisition Co., LLC, an entity controlled by Golden State Vintner's President and Chief Executive Officer. O'Neill Acquisition Co., LLC was also named as defendant in the Complaint.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that by the summer of 2003, Golden State was beginning to emerge from a long history of losses coupled with massive writedowns, and that defendants realized that Golden State had not only turned around financially but had begun to exhibit strong growth. Defendants knew that disclosing the Company's profitability would send the Company's shares higher, making the defendants' plans to acquire Golden State in a reverse split/going private transaction (the "Reverse Split Scheme") less profitable, if not impossible. As part of defendants' Reverse Split Scheme, defendants disseminated to shareholders a proxy statement dated December 23, 2003 (the "Proxy") detailing the terms of the proposed transaction. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy included false statements about the value of Golden State's business and its prospects, which false statements were included in the Proxy for the purpose of inducing Golden State shareholders to approve the sale of Golden State to the O'Neill Acquisition Co. LLC, a California limited liability company which would cash out all Golden State shareholders holding less than 5,900 shares for $3.25 per share.

The complaint further alleges that on January 20, 2004, after concealing the third-party offer for two weeks, defendants falsely stated that the O'Neill Group transaction had been "indefinitely suspended ... in order to provide more time to fully evaluate current conditions and the potential implications for shareholder value." Defendants further stated that they were terminating the sale to the O'Neill Group due to "recently improved business and market conditions." Thereafter, the Company executed an agreement to sell Golden State for a much higher price and ultimately signed a definitive agreement to sell the Company to The Wine Group for $8.25 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Beverages (Alcoholic)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: VINT
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 #: 04-CV-3434
JUDGE: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 08/19/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/23/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/23/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-3434
JUDGE: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 09/23/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/23/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/23/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 · info@csgrr.com/
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date