Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/19/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 31, 2006

The original complaint charges Dot Hill and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false statements. Specifically, defendants concealed the following: (i) the Company's accounting department suffered from material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the necessary staff and resources to perform its required functions; (ii) the Company's inadequate internal accounting process and controls enabled Dot Hill management to manipulate the Costs of Goods Sold and routinely and inappropriately misclassify "expenses"; (iii) the Company lacked effective internal controls in its financial reporting process; and (iv) the Company falsely reported its Q1-Q3 04 financial results by improperly recognizing revenue and by improperly recording expenses.

The complaint further alleges that on or around February 3, 2005, the Company announced its preliminary Q4 04 financial results and that it would be restating its 2004 unaudited financial results due to a data entry error that the Company attributed to material weaknesses in its internal controls. The Company also stated that it had "identified other errors pertaining to the quarters ended March 31, 2004, June 30, 2004 and September 30, 2004 that it deems immaterial, including: the incorrect classification of certain product costs as operating expenses, the failure to eliminate corresponding revenue and cost of goods sold entries and the presence of duplicate entries."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Dot Hill Systems Corp between April 23, 2003 and February 3, 2005, inclusive. Also included are those who purchased in a secondary offering on or around September 17, 2003.

On June 8, 2006, several complaints were consolidated into a single action. On June 23, 2006, and the Court appointed as lead plaintiff a group comprised of the Detroit Police and Fire Retirement System and the General Retirement System of the City of Detroit. The consolidated complaint was filed on August 25, 2006, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on October 5, 2006. The Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss on March 15, 2007. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on April 20, 2007. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on May 1, 2008. On September 2, 2008, U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice with leave to file a third amended consolidated class action complaint within thirty days of the date the Order. Judge Sammartino also granted the motion to stay discovery in the state court actions.

On October 10, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint against all defendants. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on November 24, 2008. On March 18, 2009, Judge Sammartino granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice with leave to file a Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

On April 17, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal as to the order dismissing the action. According to an Order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued on May 1, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals a review of the challenged order reflects that it may not be final and appealable because the USDC dismissed the third amended class action complaint with leave to amend. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall move for voluntary dismissal of this appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On May 15, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of intent of not to file a Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint, and on May 18, 2009, Judge Janis L. Sammartino issued the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal dismissing the action with prejudice. On June 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Notice of Appeal as to the judgment and order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 30, 2009, the Court entered the Order from the U.S. Court of Appeals. The parties stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Storage Devices
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HILL
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. California
DOCKET #: 06-CV-00228
JUDGE: Hon. John S. Rhoades
DATE FILED: 01/31/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/23/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/03/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  4. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  5. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  6. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  8. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
    10940 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 2300, Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), CA 90024
    310.209.2468 ·
  9. Weiss & Lurie (Los Angeles, CA)
    10940 Wilshire Blvd - 24th Floor, Weiss & Lurie (Los Angeles, CA), CA 90024
    310.208.2800 310.209.2348 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 06-CV-00228
JUDGE: Hon. John S. Rhoades
DATE FILED: 10/10/2008
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/23/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/27/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kirby McInerney LLP (New York)
    825 Third Avenue, Kirby McInerney LLP (New York), NY 10022
    212.371.6600 212.371.6600 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date