Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 04/15/2014 (Other)

Filing Date: November 06, 2009

According to a press release dated November 07, 2009, the Complaint charges STEC and certain of the Company’s executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. STEC designs, manufactures and markets enterprise-class solid state drives, for use in high performance storage and server systems, and high density dynamic random access memory, modules for networking, communications and industrial applications. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning STEC’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading.

Specifically, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company over sold its largest customer more inventory than it required; (2) that, as such, the Company overstated the demand for its ZeusIOPS SSD products; (3) that the Company's subsequent revenue and financial results for the following year would be negatively impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the above, Defendants' statements during the Class Period lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 3, 2009, STEC shocked investors when it announced that one of its largest customers, which accounts for 90 percent of STEC's ZeusIOPS SSD business and which had placed a $120 million order for the second half of 2009, would carry 2009 inventory into 2010, placing STEC's 2010 first quarter results at risk. As a result of this news, shares of STEC declined $9.01 per share, more than 38%, to close on November 4, 2009, at $14.14 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

On January 20, 2010, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the above-captioned action, without prejudice, as to all Defendants. The next day, January 21, 2010, an order consolidating related actions and setting briefing schedule was entered into the Court’s docket.

On February 08, 2010, a minute order was issued by the court granting plaintiffs Arman Rashtchi and Keith Ovitt’s Motions for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
and Lead Counsel and Denying All Other Motions for Appointment of Lead Counsel.

On April 06, 2010, a consolidated class action complaint was filed with the court by the plaintiffs against the defendants.

On August 13, 2010, a First Amended Consolidated Complaint against defendant was filed by the lead plaintiff.

On June 19, 2012, the Court issued an Order certifying a class for the Exchange Act claim. On September 6, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an Order denying the petition for permission to appeal the district court's above order granting class certification.

On December 14, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On October 5, 2012, Lead Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 5, 2013.

On May 23, 2013, the Court issued a Final Order approving the Settlement. The Court also issued an Order awarding Attorneys' fees on May 28.

On June 26, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Motion for an award of attorneys' fees filed by a particular law firm.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Electronic Instruments & Controls
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: STEC
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 09-CV-01304
JUDGE: Hon. James V. Selna
DATE FILED: 11/06/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/03/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/03/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Saxena White PA (Boca Raton)
    2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257, Saxena White PA (Boca Raton), FL 33431
    561.394.3399 561.394.3399 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 09-CV-01304
JUDGE: Hon. James V. Selna
DATE FILED: 04/09/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/16/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/23/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego)
    12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Former New York)
    500 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 1810, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Former New York), NY 10110
    212.696.3730 504.455-1498 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date