|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 2762 | Stocks | 07/19/2004
A class action has been filed against certain of the officers and directors of electronics services provider DDi Corporation (OTCBB: DDICQ, formerly OTCBB: DDIC and Nasdaq: DDIC) by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between December 19, 2000, and April 29, 2002. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock.
DDi provides technologically advanced, time-critical electronics engineering, development and manufacturing services to original equipment manufacturers and other providers of electronics manufacturing services. The action alleges that the true facts that were known by each of the defendants, but concealed from the investing public during the time period involved, were as follows: 1. The company's financial results were overstated. Specifically, the company failed to properly conduct its impairment test of the company's assets, including goodwill. Moreover, the company had overstated the value of its inventory. 2. The company's receivables and projections were grossly overstated as the company's clients were delaying payment or defaulting on their debts to DDi as the technology market continued to deteriorate. 3. The company's results, which the defendants claimed "out performed (their) expectations," were the result of improper accounting, and not as claimed. 4. The company's clients were not, as the defendants suggested, converting their prototypes into preproduction orders. 5. The company's Anaheim plant was in disarray, requiring massive restructuring of the facilities and causing the company to incur massive costs. 6. The company's Tokyo offices were hemorrhaging cash and were draining the company's resources. 7. The company's United Kingdom design centers were essentially creating redundant expenses and were inefficient, causing the company's valuation of these centers to be overvalued. 8. The company was in violation of its financial covenants and had delayed the breakdown of its assets for multiple quarters in order to avoid lenders' and shareholders' knowledge of the company's violation. 9. The company's Moorpark, California, operations and Texas operations were hemorrhaging millions of dollars quarterly and required that the defendants write down their value by the end of the first quarter 2001 by approximately $10 million. 10. The company's post-acquisition valuation of its Sanmina acquisition was grossly overvalued. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Stocks Cases of Interest Several class actions have been filed against auto manufacturer DaimlerChrysler AG (NYSE:DCX) and certain of its officers and directors by foreign stockholders who purchased the securities of DaimlerChrysler AG between November 17, 1998, and November 17, 2000, including those former foreign shareholders of Chrysler Corporation who surrendered their Chrysler shares in connection with the merger of Chrysler and Daimler-Benz on November 17, 1998. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the nature of the merger as a ‘merger of equals’ to avoid paying an acquisition premium to Chrysler shareholders. Several class actions have been filed against pet health company Virbac Corporation (Nasdaq: VBACE) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between May 3, 2001, and November 12, 2003. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. Several class actions have been filed against bank holding company Commerce Bancorp, Inc., (NYSE: CBH) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between June 1, 2002, and June 28, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The class has been certified in an action filed against Kmart Corporation board members and executives on behalf of current and former Kmart employees who had more than $100 million of the discount chain's stock in their 401(k) retirement plans when the company went bankrupt. The action alleges that the defendants violated the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act by abrogating their fiduciary duties to plan participants. Persons eligible to take part in the action should contact attorneys for the class. A class action has been filed against AstraZeneca PLC (NYSE:AZN), a pharmaceutical company and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between April 2nd, 2003 and October 11th, 2004. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. Lowrance Electronics, Inc. announced that Lowrance and the members of its board of directors have entered into an agreement to settle the stockholder class action lawsuit brought against Lowrance and the members of its board in opposition of the offer and merger transaction with Simrad Yachting AS and Simrad Yachting's wholly owned subsidiary, Navico Acquisition Corporation. |
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
