LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: NIS137699, CourtName: CLASS ACTION CASES, State: CA California, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>NIS137699, Nuko, Revenue, Individual Defendants, Complaint, Reform Act, Lead Plaintiffs, Allegations, Facts, Movants, Securities, Common Stock, Standard, Stock, Scienter, Class Action, Nuko Information Systems, Motion, Misleading, Wolitarsky, Act, Alleges, Kondamoori, Accounting, Pleading, California, Amended Complaint, Defendants Deny, Class Period, Paragraph, Entry, Plaintiff Lillian Levine, Second Circuit, Appointment, Stock Price, Latham, Co-lead, Complaints, Inference, Lead Plaintiff, Peter Kanevsky , ContentID: 120246233

Case Documents
1   SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114639
6 pages
PDF
2   STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CASE 9720471-EAI
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114638
6 pages
PDF
3   REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114637
4 pages
PDF
5   MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114634
20 pages
PDF
6   LITIGANTS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114630
2 pages
PDF
7   DECLARATION OF JAMES J FARRELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114625
4 pages
PDF
8 2000-11-08 DEFENDANTS REQUEST
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114628
5 pages
PDF
9 1999-04-26 MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114631
22 pages
PDF
10 1999-04-26 DECLARATION OF ANTHONY LEE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114624
2 pages
PDF
11 1999-04-14 CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE 97-CV-20471
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114621
9 pages
PDF
12 1999-03-16 MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114633
15 pages
PDF
13 1997-09-15 DEFENDANTS SUPP BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114629
2 pages
PDF
14 1997-08-25 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114632
12 pages
PDF
15 1997-08-25 DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114627
7 pages
PDF
16 1997-08-25 DECLARATION OF ROBERT S GREEN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114626
3 pages
PDF
17 1997-06-24 RELATED CASE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114636
3 pages
PDF
18 1997-06-24 COMPLAINT B
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114623
14 pages
PDF
19 1997-05-23 COMPLAINT A
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114622
12 pages
PDF
20 1997-04-24 ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114620
21 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 20 documents , 171 pages
Price: $ 114.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PARTY
DISTRICT
COURT
INSPECTION
STATES DISTRICT
CIVIL
CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SECURITIES LITIGATION
COPYING
OBJECTION
SUITE
PREMISES
ATTORNEY
TESTIFY
DEPOSITION
PERMIT INSPECTION
OFFICER
PROTECTION
PRODUCTION
MATERIALS
AVENUE
NORTHERN DISTRICT
LATHAM
WATKINS
LOS ANGELES
FEDERAL RULES
CIVIL PROCEDURE
 i


A 0  88 (Rev. 11/94) Subpoena in a Civil Case

                                                                                                   
                                                                           UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT
   COURT
                                                                           Northern                
In  re NUKO  INFORMATION  SYSTEMS,  INC.
SECURITIES  LITIGATION
                                                                                                   
IN A CIVIL CASE
                                                                    V.                             
R:'  c 97-20471 EAI



TO:  National  Association  of  Securities  Dealers,  Inc.  (NASD,  Inc.)
               c/o  Terri  Reicher,  Assistant  General  Counsel

                YOU  ARE  COMMANDED  to  appear  in  the  United  States  District  Court  at  the 
                                                          to
 testify  in  the  above  case.
PLACE OF  TESTIMONY
            COURTROOM



            DATE AND  TIME



 0
                YOU  ARE  COMMANDED to appear  at  the  place,  date,  and  time  specified  below

           to testify  at  the  taking  of  a  deposition  in
 the  above  case.
PLACE OF DEPOSITION
            DATE AND  TIME




                 YOU  ARE  COMMANDED  to  produce  and  permit  inspection  and  copying  of  the 
place,  date,  and  time  specified  below  (list  documents  or  objects):

                                                                                   SEE  ATTACHMENT

SNIPPETS:
  • A 0 88 Subpoena in a Civil Case
  • DISTRICT OF California In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
  • YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time
  • to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case.
  • YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or
  • AND TIME Latham &.
  • November 3, 2000 633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 4000
  • YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time
  • Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition
  • ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) DATE
  • 26, 2000 lS!SUlNG OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER Latham & Watkins, 633 W. Fifth
  • Los Angeles Phone: 485-1234;
  • (See Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D on Reverse)
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • Los Anqeles, California 90071 Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D:
  • testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue materials or of the premises.
  • If objection is made, the party serving
  • to an order of the court by appearance or production only upon specified conditions.
  • to correspond with the categories in the not a party or an officer of a party from
  • 160 Sansome Street, Suite 300 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.

  • 2 . STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER CASE 9720471-EAI

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    REFORM
    DEFENDANTS
    MOTION
    DISMISS
    PLAINTIFES
    STIPULAM
    PRACTICE
    PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION
    LITIGATION REFORM ACT
    COURT GRANTED DEFENDANTS
    DISMISS PLAIUTIFH
    FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
    NENCLOD COMPLAINT
    PARTES HEREBY STIPULAM
    FIX DEFDANTS
    RESPONSE
    SECOND AMENDED CAMPLAINT
    LOULD
    CONDNUCD
    COUNTERPARTS
    SIGNATURE
    ILL
    BINDING
    ORRESPONDENCE
    MAILING
    WATKIN
    W97
    
                                   1  LATHAM & WATKINS
                                           Marc W. Rappel (Bar No. 97032)
                                   2       James J. Farrell (Bar No.  166595)
                                         633  West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
                                   3  Los Angeles, California  9007 1-2007
                                         Telephone:  (213) 485-1234
                                   4  Facsimile:  (2  13)
                                                          89 1-8763
    
                                   5  Attorneys  for Defendants
    
                                   6
    
                                   7
                                   8                                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                   9                                NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                              10  [n  re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS,  Master File No. C-97 20471 EAI
                              11  [NC. SECURITIES LITIGATION                           CLASS ACTION
                              12
                              13                                                       STIPULATION AND
    
                              14  This Document Relates To:  All Actions
                              15
    
                              16
    
                              17
    
                              18
    
                             19                                                                        
                             20
    
                             21
    
                             22
    
                             23
    
                             24
    
                             25
    
                             26
                             27
    
                             28
    ~ T H A M
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • ATTORNEYS A T L A W IUS ANOELES
  • this d o n is suhject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "'Reform
  • WHEREAS, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaiutifh' first amended complaint
  • WHEREAS, plaintifEs filed their second amended complaint on September 10,
  • thc Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss plaintids' second
  • nenclod complaint on June 19,2000;
  • ALL PARTES HEREBY STIPULAm AND AGREE as follows:
  • The due date fix defdants' response to the second amended camplaint
  • lould be condnucd until July 28,2000;
  • This stipulation may be signed in counterparts, and a facsi.de signature .ill be effective
  • 14 (:orrespondence for mailing.
  • Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
  • h r u m & WATKIN: LA-DOCSE45844.1 [W97]

  • 3 . REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    JUDICIAL NOTICE
    DISMISS PLAINTIFFS
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    DEFENDANTS
    LATHAM
    WATKINS
    CALIFORNIA
    MOTION
    PRACTICE
    UNITED STATES
    SUPPORT
    SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
    FILINGS
    TRANSMISSION
    BUSINESS
    COLLECTING
    BAR
    JAMES
    FARRELL
    LOS ANGELES
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    DECLARATION
    SECURITIES
    SUPP
    CIR
    FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
    EMPLOYERS
    PLEADINGS
    
    
    
    LATHAM & WATKINS
    Marc W. Rappel (Bar No. 97032)
    James J. Farrell (Bar No. 166595)
    633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
    Los Angeles, California 90071-2007
    Telephone: (213) 485-1234
    Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    John Gorman and Pratap K. Kondamoori
    
                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, |   Master File No. C-97 20471 EAI
    INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION                  |
                                                | CLASS ACTION
                                                |
                                                | REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
                                                | SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
                                                | DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
                                                | [filed Nov. 19, 1999]
                                                | [Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), 9(b)]
                                                |
    ___________________________________ | Date: January 24, 2000
    This Document Relates To: All Actions       | Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                | Judge: Hon. Edward A. Infante
    ___________________________________ |
    
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendants John Gorman and Pratap K. Kondamoori (the
    "Individual Defendants"), former officers of NUKO Information Systems, Inc.
    ("NUKO"), request that the Court take judicial notice of selected pages from the
    following documents as attached to the Declaration of James J. Farrell in Support of the
    Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint:
    
           1. NUKO's August 6, 1997 Form S-3 Registration Statement, filed with the
           United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC");
    
           2. NUKO's May 14, 1997 10-Q Form 12B-25 Notification of Late Filing, filed
           with the SEC on May 14, 1997.
    
           3. NUKO's March 31, 1997 Form 10-K Annual Report.
    
           4. NUKO's Form 10-Q SB Quarterly Report, filed with the SEC on August 14,
           1996.
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Marc W. Rappel (Bar No. 97032) James J. Farrell
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, | Master File No. C-97 20471 EAI
  • NUKO's August 6, 1997 Form S-3 Registration Statement, filed with the United States
  • 1999 Order dismissing Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.
  • MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. JUDICIAL NOTICE IS PROPER
  • In considering a motion to dismiss, the Court need not accept as true allegations that
  • Employers Ins.
  • the Court may consider documents outside of the pleadings in support of a Rule 12motion to
  • Co., 858 F. Supp.
  • In securities fraud cases, the Court may take judicial notice of public records outside the
  • Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 504 (9th Cir.
  • The Court may also consider SEC filings, even when those filings are not referenced in the
  • This Court should take judicial notice of NUKO's public filings with the Securities Exchange
  • These documents are relevant to the resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
  • the Court should take judicial notice of the documents attached to the Declaration of James
  • My business address is Latham & Watkins, 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles,
  • I deposited the above documentfor facsimile transmission in accordance with the office
  • I am familiar with the office practice of Latham & Watkins for collecting, processing, and

  • 5 . MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    COURT
    NUKO
    REFORM ACT
    INFERENCE
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    SECURITIES
    REVENUE
    SCIENTER
    STOCK
    FACTS
    ALLEGATIONS
    KONDAMOORI
    ALLEGE
    SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
    CALIFORNIA
    INTERNEXT TRANSACTION
    STOCK PRICE
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS
    CLASS PERIOD
    ALLEGED INFLATED PRICE
    PRIVATE SECURITIES
    SECURITIES LITIGATION
    DELIBERATE RECKLESSNESS
    INSUFFICIENT
    PARTICULARITY
    SAC
    RESTATED REVENUE
    
    
    
    LATHAM & WATKINS
    Marc W. Rappel (Bar No. 97032)
    James J. Farrell (Bar No. 166595)
    633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
    Los Angeles, California 90071-2007
    Telephone: (213) 485-1234
    Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    John Gorman and Pratap K. Kondamoori
    
                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                           NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, |   Master File No. C-97 20471 EAI
    INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION                    |
                                                  | CLASS ACTION
                                                  |
                                                  | DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND
                                                  | MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED
                                                  | COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
                                                  | AND AUTHORITIES
                                                  | [filed Nov. 19, 1999]
                                                  | [Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), 9(b)]
                                                  |
    ___________________________________ | Date: December __, 1999
    This Document Relates To: All Actions         | Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                  | Judge: Hon. Edward A. Infante
    ___________________________________ |
    
    
    TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
    
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December __, 1999, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
    thereafter, counsel may be heard in the courtroom of the Honorable Edward A. Infante,
    United States District Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, defendants,
    John H. Gorman and Pratap K. Kondamoori (collectively the "Individual Defendants")
    will and hereby do move the Court, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal
    Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
    ("Reform Act"), to dismiss with prejudice plaintiffs' second amended complaint. This
    motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, the supporting memorandum of
    points and authorities filed herewith, all documents on file in this action and such other
    written and oral argument as may be presented at or before the hearing of this motion.
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • John Gorman and Pratap K. Kondamoori
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
  • PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT MUST BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PLEAD "STRONG
  • The Heightened Scrutiny Mandated By the Reform Act and the Ninth Circuit.
  • The Individual Defendants' Retention of Their Stock During the Class
  • The Internext Transaction Cannot Give Rise to an Inference of Scienter
  • Plaintiffs' Remaining Motive Allegations Are Insufficient.
  • PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT ALLEGED FACTS WITH ADEQUATE PARTICULARITY SHOWING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL
  • Does Plaintiffs' second amended complaint sufficiently allege facts giving rise to a "strong
  • Does Plaintiffs' second amended complaint fail to state a claim for fraud under Section 10of
  • In utter disregard for this Court's July 14, 1999 Order, dismissing the first amended
  • Like the first amended complaint, Plaintiffs' second amended complaint fails to allege facts
  • Kondamoori's and Gorman's intent to deceive: 1) the Individual Defendants' personal gain, and
  • Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants sought to artificially inflate the value of the Nuko
  • In addition to the lack of scienter, the Court's July 14 Order also dismissed the first
  • "Plaintiffs are relying primarily on hindsight offered by the restated revenue announcement
  • The Individual Defendants retained their stock during the alleged inflated price period and
  • In SGI, the plaintiff alleged that six of the company's top officers made a series of
  • Plaintiffs have not alleged and cannot allege that either Gorman or Kondamoori placed any
  • (SAC ¶¶ 23, 24, 94-96.)
  • In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS,

  • 6 . LITIGANTS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DISTRICT
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    CALIFORNIA
    SAN JOSE
    PLAINTIFF
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS
    PRATAP
    KONDAMOORI
    JOHN
    GORMAN
    
    
    
    5:97cv20612             Wolitarsky, et al v. Nuko Information, et al
    
                                                                             RELATE
                                     U.S. District Court
    U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
    
    
    BRUCE WOLITARSKY, individually              Herbert E. Milstein
    and on behalf of all others                 [COR LD NTC]
    similarly situated                          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll
               Plaintiff                        1100 New York Ave NW
                                                West Tower Ste 500
                                                Washington, DC 20005-3934
                                                (202) 408-4600
    
                                                Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr.
                                                [COR LD NTC]
                                                Berman DeValerio Pease &
                                                Tabacco
                                                425 California St
                                                Ste 2025
                                                San Francisco, CA 94104
                                                (415) 433-3200
    
                                                Steven J. Toll
                                                206-521-0080
                                                Suite 2905
                                                [COR LD NTC]
                                                Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
                                                Toll
                                                1301 Fifth Avenue
                                                Seattle, WA 98101
    
    
    CAROL WOLITARSKY, individually              Herbert E. Milstein
    and on behalf of all others                 (See above)
    similarly situated                          [COR LD NTC]
               Plaintiff
                                                Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr.
                                                (See above)
                                                [COR LD NTC]
    
                                                Steven J. Toll
                                                (See above)
                                                [COR LD NTC]
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
  • Plaintiff
  • NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. defendant
  • PRATAP K. KONDAMOORI
  • JOHN H. GORMAN

  • 7 . DECLARATION OF JAMES J FARRELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    LATHAM
    WATKINS
    CALIFORNIA
    PRACTICE
    UNITED STATES
    DECLARE
    LOCATING RELEVANT PORTIONS
    JAMES
    FARRELL
    LOS ANGELES
    NUKO
    HERETO
    UNDERLINING
    TRANSMISSION
    DISMISS PLAINTIFFS
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    BUSINESS
    COLLECTING
    ATTORNEYS
    DEFENDANTS
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS
    LAW
    PERSONNEL
    DOCUMENT RELATING
    REGISTRATION STATEMENT
    INTERNEXT
    REPORT
    REVENUE RECOGNITION POLICY
    
    
    
    LATHAM & WATKINS
    Marc W. Rappel (Bar No. 97032)
    James J. Farrell (Bar No. 166595)
    633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
    Los Angeles, California 90071-2007
    Telephone: (213) 485-1234
    Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    John Gorman and Pratap K. Kondamoori
    
                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                            NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, |   Master File No. C-97 20471 EAI
    INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION                    |
                                                  | CLASS ACTION
                                                  |
                                                  | DECLARATION OF JAMES J. FARRELL IN
                                                  | SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
                                                  | DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
                                                  | [filed Nov. 19, 1999]
                                                  | [Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), 9(b)]
                                                  |
    ___________________________________ | Date: January 24, 2000
    This Document Relates To: All Actions         | Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                  | Judge: Hon. Edward A. Infante
    ___________________________________ |
    
                       DECLARATION OF JAMES J. FARRELL
    I, James J. Farrell, declare as follows:
    
    1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and appear before this
    Court, I am also an associate of the law firm of Latham & Watkins, attorneys for John
    Gorman and Pratap K. Kondamoori, former officers of NUKO Information Systems, Inc.
    ("NUKO"). The matters stated herein are based on my personal knowledge. If called, I
    could and would competently testify to the truth and accuracy of the matters stated
    herein.
    
    2. Attached hereto as Exhibit "1" is a true and correct copy of NUKO's August 6, 1997
    Form S-3 Registration Statement, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
    Commission ("SEC"), that I printed from the SEC's electronic data gathering analysis and
    retrieval system ("EDGAR"). Exhibit "1" includes handwritten interlineation and
    underlining that I placed on the document to replace text deleted in printing the document
    and to assist the Court in locating relevant portions of the document. Exhibit "1" is the
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, | Master File No. C-97 20471 EAI
  • DECLARATION OF JAMES J. FARRELL
  • I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and appear before this
  • Attached hereto as Exhibit "1" is a true and correct copy of NUKO's August 6, 1997 Form S-3
  • Exhibit "1" includes handwritten interlineation and underlining that I placed on the document
  • Exhibit "1" is the NUKO Registration Statement that includes the Internext Stock Purchase
  • Exhibit "2" includes underlining that I placed on the document to assist the Court in
  • Exhibit "3" includes underlining that I placed on the document to assist the Court in
  • Attached hereto as Exhibit "4" is a true and correct copy of NUKO's Form 10-Q SB Quarterly
  • Each of the above documents is relevant to the issues currently before the Court in
  • I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is
  • Executed on November ____, 1999, at Los Angeles, California.
  • My business address is Latham & Watkins, 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles,
  • I deposited the above documentfor facsimile transmission in accordance with the office
  • transmitting facsimiles, which practice is that when a facsimile is deposited with the Latham
  • GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF Stanford University School of Law

  • 8 . DEFENDANTS REQUEST

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
    ANGELES
    DEFENDANTS
    ATTORNEYS
    WATKINS
    CALIFORNIA
    TRAVEL
    EVANSTON
    PRACTICE
    EMPLOYMENT
    KONDAMOORI
    EXTREMELY BUSY
    COUNTRY
    CONNECTION
    INSURANCE COVERAGE
    MATTER
    AUTHORITY
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    DEFENDANTS REQUEST
    LAW
    CORRESPONDENCE
    MAILING
    THEREON FULLY PREPAID
    ORDINARY COURSE
    BUSINESS
    COURT
    LOS ANGELES
    LATHAM
    W97
    
                           1  ,ATHAM & WATKINS
                                   Marc W. Rappel (Bar No. 97032)
                           2       James J. Farrell (Bar No. 166595)
                                 133 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
                           3  .os Angeles, California  90071 -2007
                                 'elephone: (213) 485-1234
                           4  ;acsimile: (2 13) 891 -8763
    
                           5  ittorneys for Defendants
                                 ohn Gorman and Pratap K. Kondamoori
                           6
    
                           7
                           8                                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           9                                 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNA4
    
                         10  n re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS,  Master File No. C-97 20471 EA1
                         11  NC. SECURITIES LITIGATION                       CLASS ACTION
                         12
                         13                                                  DEFENDANTS'  REQUEST TO BE
                                                                             FROM PERSONAL ATTENDANCE AT
                         14                                                  SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
    
                         15
                         16                                                  Date:             
                                                                             Time:               1:00
                         17                                                  Settlement Judge: 
                                                                                               
                         18  rhis Document Relates To: All Actions
                         19              -_
    
                         20
    
                         21
    
                         22
    
                         23
    
                         24
    
                         25
    
                         26
    
                         27
    
                         28
    LATHAM & WATKIK                                                            DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • 1,ATHAM & WATKINS
  • ATTORNEYS AT L A W
  • Francisco, California.
  • Attending the conference would not only require substantial travel,
  • could also impair Mr. Gorman's employment.
  • Mr. Kondamoori is also extremely busy and often
  • travels out of the country on short notice in connection with his work.
  • 10 insurance coverage over this matter, and a representative for Evanston, with full
  • 11 authority,
  • The individual defendants' attendance at the
  • 12 settlement conference will be unnecessary and duplicative in light of the attendance of the
  • 13 Evanston representative.
  • defendants request to be excused from personally
  • ATTORNEYS AT LAW
  • 15 correspondence for mailing.
  • Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal
  • 16 Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of
  • 17 to practice before this Court at whose direction the service was made.
  • LOS ANGELES
  • 28 LATHAM & WATKINC A-DOCS546153.1 [W97] ATTORNEYS

  • 9 . MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COMPLAINT
    DEFENDANTS
    NUKO
    STANDARD
    PLAINTIFFS
    FACTS
    REFORM ACT
    ALLEGES
    PLEADING
    SCIENTER
    SECOND CIRCUIT
    MISLEADING
    PLEADS FACTS
    STOCK
    SUPP
    ALLEGATIONS
    CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
    REVENUE RECOGNITION
    TRANSACTION
    STOCK PRICE
    ADEQUATELY ALLEGES
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    ACCOUNTING
    KONDAMOORI
    MOTIVE-AND-OPPORTUNITY TEST
    PLEADS FACTS CONSTITUTING
    LEXIS
    CORPORATE TRANSACTION
    RECKLESSNESS
    
    
    
    Robert S. Green (State Bar No. 136183)
    Anthony K. Lee (State Bar No. 156018)
    GIRARD & GREEN, LLP
    160 Sansome Street, Suite 300
    San Francisco, California 94104
    Telephone: (415) 981-4800
    Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
    
    Jonathan M. Plasse
    Robert Giallombardo
    GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF
     & SUCHAROW LLP
    100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
    New York, New York 10017-5563
    Telephone: (212) 907-0700
    Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
    
    Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    
                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                           NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                       SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.  )  Master File No. C-97-20471-EAI
    SECURITIES LITIGATION                          )
                                                   ) PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF
                                                   ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
                                                   ) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
                                                   ) MOTION TO DISMISS
                                                   ) [filed Apr. 26, 1999]
                                                   ) CLASS ACTION
                                                   )
                                                   ) Date: May 17, 1999
                                                   ) Time: 10:00 a.m.
    _______________________________________ ) Judge: Honorable Edward A. Infante
    
    
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
    I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
    
    II. THE REFORM ACT ADOPTED THE SECOND CIRCUIT STANDARD FOR
    PLEADING SCIENTER.
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • THE REFORM ACT ADOPTED THE SECOND CIRCUIT STANDARD FOR PLEADING SCIENTER.
  • WHICHEVER STANDARD IS APPLIED, THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGES SCIENTER.
  • The Complaint Pleads Facts Satisfying The Motive-And-Opportunity Test.
  • The Complaint Pleads Facts Constituting Strong Circumstantial Evidence of Conscious
  • NUKO'S FIRST QUARTER PRESS RELEASE WAS FALSE AND MISLEADING WHEN MADE -- AND THE INDIVIDUAL
  • The Revenue Reported in the First Quarter Press Release Was Improper, And Not the Result Of A
  • The First Quarter Press Release was False and Misleading When Made In Light of Defendants'
  • LEXIS 9489 (S.D.N.Y.
  • F. Supp.
  • Plaintiffs respectfully submit this memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to
  • This case arises from a scheme perpetrated by Defendants to artificially inflate the stock
  • Kondamoori attributed these phenomenal improvements to an increase in new customers.
  • Among other things, the Complaint alleges that by inflating the price of its stock, the
  • Despite the fact that only a few weeks earlier, Kondamoori and Gorman had personally assured
  • 15 U.S.C. §78u4Although the Reform Act directs a court to dismiss the complaint where the
  • Under Second Circuit precedent incorporated by the Reform Act, plaintiffs may establish a
  • Cal 1996) (applying Second Circuit's motive-and-opportunity test);
  • Indeed, given the specific allegations concerning the nature and magnitude of Nuko's

  • 10 . DECLARATION OF ANTHONY LEE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    LLP
    CALIFORNIA
    GIRARD
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS
    ROBERT
    ANTHONY
    LEE
    SAN FRANCISCO
    YORK
    ATTORNEYS
    PLAINTIFFS
    DECLARE
    EXHIBIT
    LITIGATION
    HERETO
    PREFERRED STOCK
    WARRANT PURCHASE
    AGREEMENT
    REPORT
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES
    EXCHANGE COMMISSION
    ELECTRONIC DATA GATHERING
    RETRIEVAL SYSTEM
    EDGAR
    INTERNET
    PENALTY
    PERJURY
    FOREGOING
    EPOST
    
    
    
    Robert S. Green (State Bar No. 136183)
    Anthony K. Lee (State Bar No. 156018)
    GIRARD & GREEN, LLP
    160 Sansome Street, Suite 300
    San Francisco, California 94104
    Telephone: (415) 981-4800
    Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
    
    Jonathan M. Plasse
    Robert Giallombardo
    GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF
     & SUCHAROW LLP
    100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
    New York, New York 10017-5563
    Telephone: (212) 907-0700
    Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
    
    Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    
                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                           NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                       SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.  )  Master File No. C-97-20471-EAI
    SECURITIES LITIGATION                              )
                                                       ) DECLARATION OF ANTHONY K.
                                                       ) LEE IN OPPOSITION TO
                                                       ) DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
                                                       ) DISMISS
                                                       ) [filed Apr. 26, 1999]
                                                       ) CLASS ACTION
                                                       )
                                                       ) Date: May 17, 1999
                                                       ) Time: 10:00 a.m.
    _______________________________________ ) Judge: Honorable Edward A. Infante
    
    I, Anthony K. Lee, declare as follows:
    
           1. I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California and an associate
           at Girard & Green, LLP, attorneys for Plaintiffs in this litigation.
    
           2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 4.1, entitled
           "SERIES B PREFERRED STOCK AND WARRANT PURCHASE
           AGREEMENT," to NUKO Information Systems, Inc.'s report on Form S-3 filed
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Robert S. Green (State Bar No. 136183) Anthony K. Lee
  • Robert Giallombardo
  • GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW LLP
  • New York, New York 10017-5563 Telephone: 907-0700 Facsimile: 818-0477
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
  • I, Anthony K. Lee, declare as follows:
  • I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California and an associate at Girard &
  • Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Exhibit 4.1,
  • "SERIES B PREFERRED STOCK AND WARRANT PURCHASE
  • AGREEMENT," to NUKO Information Systems, Inc.'s report on Form S-3 filed with the United
  • I printed from the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval system
  • I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
  • Executed on April 26, 1999, at San Francisco, California.
  • File to epost from Girard & Green LLP

  • 11 . CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE 97-CV-20471

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COUNSEL
    PLAINTIFFS
    DEFENDANT
    INFANTE
    FIRST AMENDE
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    JUDGE EDWARD
    MAG
    LEAD PLAINTIFFS
    CO-LEAD COUNSEL
    CGB
    STIPULATION
    APPOINTMENT
    RESPONSE
    CONFERENCE
    EXTENDING TIME
    MOTION
    LILLIAN LEVINE
    MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
    NUKO INFORMATION
    DEFENDANT JOHN
    GORMAN
    DOCKET
    DISTRICT
    CONSOLIDATION ORDER
    COURT
    JURY DEMAND
    OPPOSITION
    MEMORANDUM
    
    
    
    Docket as of April 14, 1999 [retrieved 4/15/99]
    
    Proceedings include all events.
    5:97cv20471 Levine v. Nuko Information, et al
    
                               U.S. District Court
    U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
    
                      CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 97-CV-20471
    
    Levine v. Nuko Information, et al                                  Filed:
    05/23/97
    Assigned to: Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante         Jury demand: Both
    Demand: $0,000                                    Nature of Suit: 850
    Lead Docket: None                                 Jurisdiction: Federal
    Question
    Dkt# in other court: None
    
    Cause: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act
    
    [Party and Counsel List]
    
    
    5/23/97 1            COMPLAINT no Summons(es) issued; Fee status pd entered
    on
                         5/23/97 in the amount of $ 150.00 ( Receipt No.
    127545);
                         jury demand    [5:97-cv-20471] (mp) [Entry date
    05/29/97]
    
    5/23/97 2            ORDER RE COURT PROCEDURE and SCHEDULE by Mag. Judge
    Edward
                         A. Infante : Proof of service to be filed by 7/7/97 ;
                         counsels' case management statement to be filed by
    9/12/97 ;
                          initial case management conference will be held 1:30
                         9/22/97 . (cc: all counsel) (mp) [Entry date 05/29/97]
    
    6/5/97       3       RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Nuko
    Information,
                         defendant John H. Gorman on 6/2/97     [5:97-cv-20471]
    (gm)
                         [Entry date 06/16/97]
    
    6/25/97 4            STIPULATION and ORDER by Mag. Judge Edward A. Infante
    :
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Docket as of April 14,
  • U.S. District Court
  • U.S. District for the Northern District of California
  • [Party and Counsel List]
  • jury demand [Entry date
  • Infante: Proof of service to be filed by 7/7/97;
  • initial case management conference will be held 1:30
  • 6/5/97 3 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Nuko Information,
  • extending time to answer for two weeks until 7/7/97 (cc:
  • appointment of lead plaintiffs and for approval of choice of co-lead counsel
  • 8/4/97 10 OPPOSITION by defendant to motion for appointment of lead
  • plaintiffs time to file their reply memorandum is hereby
  • 8/25/97 16 STIPULATION and Consolidation ORDER by Mag.
  • Judge Edward A. Infante granting motion
  • Lillian Levine; jury demand
  • the due date for response to the first amended complaint is
  • Case Management Conference set for 1:30 9/28/98;,
  • 6/2/98 38 NOTICE of entry of order by Plaintiff Lillian Levine
  • continuing defendants' due date to response to first amende
  • amended complaint submitted by defendant John H. Gorman,

  • 12 . MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    REFORM ACT
    NUKO
    COURT
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    SECURITIES
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS
    STOCK
    FACTS
    REVENUE
    FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
    LATHAM
    WATKINS
    CALIFORNIA
    KONDAMOORI
    STOCK PRICE
    COMPLAINT FAIL
    TRANSFER BINDER
    CCH
    PLEADING STANDARD
    ALLEGATION
    UNITED STATES
    FEDERAL RULES
    LOS ANGELES
    JOHN GORMAN
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    CIVIL PROCEDURE
    PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION
    SECURITIES LITIGATION
    
    
    
    LATHAM & WATKINS
        Marc W. Rappel (Bar No. 97032)
        James J. Farrell (Bar No. 166595)
    633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
    Los Angeles, California 90071-2007
    Telephone: (213) 485-1234
    Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    John Gorman and Pratap K. Kondamoori
    
                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                           NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS,  |  Master File No. C-97 20471 EAI
    INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION                     |
                                                   | CLASS ACTION
                                                   |
                                                   | DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND
                                                   | MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
                                                   | COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
                                                   | AND AUTHORITIES
                                                   | [filed Mar. 16, 1999]
                                                   | [Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), 9(b)]
    ____________________________________ | Date: April 26, 1999
    This Document Relates To: All Actions          | Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                   | Judge: Hon. Edward A. Infante
    ____________________________________ |
    
    
    TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
    
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 26, 1999, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter,
    counsel may be heard in the courtroom of the Honorable Edward A. Infante, United
    States District Court, 280 South First Street, Suite 2112, San Jose, California, defendants,
    John H. Gorman and Pratap K. Kondamoori (collectively the "Individual Defendants")
    will and hereby do move the Court, pursuant Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules
    of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("Reform
    Act"), to dismiss with prejudice plaintiffs' first amended complaint. This motion is based
    on this notice of motion and motion, the supporting memorandum of points and
    authorities filed herewith, all documents on file in this action and such other written and
    oral argument as may be presented at or before the hearing of this motion.
    
     Respectfully
                                                                submitted,
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • John Gorman and Pratap K. Kondamoori
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • TO PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
  • 1997 WL 23704 [1997-1998 Transfer Binder] Fed.
  • Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 99,465 (N.D.
  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
  • Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
  • Does plaintiffs' first amended complaint sufficiently allege facts giving rise to a "strong
  • Does plaintiffs' first amended complaint fail to state a claim for fraud under Section 10of
  • This case is yet another securities class action filed when a high-tech company's stock price
  • Plaintiffs have not and cannot state with particularity facts that give rise to a strong
  • Plaintiffs suggest that Defendants willfully sought to inflate NUKO's stock price because: 1)
  • Plaintiffs allege that NUKO improperly recognized revenue and misrepresented the company's
  • Through the Reform Act, Congress intended to establish a pleading requirement that is more
  • 'Incentive compensation can hardly be the basis on which an allegation of fraud is
  • My business address is Latham & Watkins, 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles,

  • 13 . DEFENDANTS SUPP BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    LEAD PLAINTIFF
    COURT
    STANDING
    MARC
    RAPPEL
    OPPOSE
    APPOINTMENT
    COUNSEL
    MOVANTS
    LATHAM
    WATKINS
    BAR
    JAMES
    FARRELL
    ATTORNEYS
    MEMORANDUM
    AUTHORITIES
    MOTION
    APPROVE
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT
    GUNTY PROFIT SHARING
    PARTY
    COMPLIANCE
    ACT
    UNRELATED PLAINTIFFS
    LAW FIRMS
    CO-LEAD COUNSEL
    CO-LIAISON COUNSEL
    
    
    
    LATHAM & WATKINS
    Marc W. Rappel (Bar No. 97032)
    James J. Farrell (Bar No. 166595)
    633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
    Los Angeles, California 90071-2007
    Telephone: (213) 485-1234
    Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
     Attorneys for Defendants
                                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                         NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    LILLIAN LEVINE, individually and on   :
    behalf of all others similarly situated,      :  CASE NO. C-97 20471 EAI
                                                  :
                   Plaintiff,                     :
                                                  :
             60;  v.                              :
                                                  :
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC., :  DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
    and JOHN H. GORMAN,                           :  REGARDING STANDING TO OPPOSE THE
                                                  :  APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF
                   Defendants.                    :  AND LEAD COUNSEL
                                                  :
                                                  :
                                                  :  Date: September 15, 1997
                                                  :  Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                  :  Place: Courtroom of the Hon. Edward A. Infante
                                                  : :
    
                         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
                                                          I.
    
    
                         DEFENDANTS HAVE STANDING TO OPPOSE THE IMPROPER LEAD
    
                                   PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL PROPOSED IN THIS CASE
    Plaintiffs' reply memorandum asserts that defendants have no standing to oppose their
    motion to appoint lead plaintiff and approve of class counsel. This Court addressed this
    precise issue in Howard Gunty Profit Sharing v. Quantum Corporation, Civil No. 96-
    20711 SW at p. 7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 1997) (copy attached as Exhibit A). The Court ruled
    that defendants have standing to oppose a motion for lead plaintiff. As Judge Williams
    explained:
    
                [W]hen, as in this suit, there are no other potential lead plaintiffs to
                challenge a moving party, the Court must rely on the defendants to insure
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • LATHAM & WATKINS
  • Marc W. Rappel (Bar No. 97032) James J. Farrell
  • California 90071-2007 Telephone: 485-1234 Facsimile: 891-8763 Attorneys for Defendants
  • MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
  • Plaintiffs' reply memorandum asserts that defendants have no standing to oppose their motion
  • This Court addressed this precise issue in Howard Gunty Profit Sharing v. Quantum
  • challenge a moving party, the Court must rely on the defendants to insure
  • Defendants' opposition focused on the movants' lack of compliance with the Act.
  • Defendants respectfully submit that the Court should not approve the appointment of all seven
  • Marc W. Rappel James J. Farrell

  • 14 . MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    MOVANTS
    WOLITARSKY
    MOTION
    PLAINTIFF LILLIAN LEVINE
    CO-LEAD
    COMPLAINTS
    PETER KANEVSKY
    APPOINTMENT
    DEFENDANTS
    GIRARD
    GOODKIND LABATON
    COHEN MILSTEIN
    CLASS MEMBERS
    SUCHAROW LLP
    BRUCE WOLITARSKY
    CAROL WOLITARSKY
    CO-LEAD COUNSEL
    MUSTAFA BENGALI
    MATTHEW SUTPHIN
    PETER MUSTO
    PSLRA
    NUKO STOCK
    PROPOSED LEAD PLAINTIFFS
    EXCHANGE ACT
    CLASS PERIOD
    ADEQUATE PLAINTIFF
    GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF
    COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD
    MEMORANDUM
    
    
    
    GIRARD & GREEN, LLP
    Robert S. Green (SBN 136183)
    160 Sansome Street, Suite 300
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Telephone: (415) 981-4800
     GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF
      & SUCHAROW LLP
    Jonathan M. Plasse
    James M. Strauss
    Catherine A. Murphy
    100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
    New York, New York 10017-5563
    Telephone: (212) 907-0700
     Attorneys for Plaintiff Lillian Levine and
    Movants Mustafa Bengali, Matthew Sutphin,
    Peter Kanevsky and Peter Musto
     COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD
      & TOLL, P.L.L.C
    Herbert E. Milstein
    Daniel S. Sommers
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
    West Tower, Suite 500
    Washington, D.C. 20005-3964
    Telephone: (202) 408-4600
     Attorneys for Movants Bruce Wolitarsky
    and Carol Wolitarsky
    
                                   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    LILLIAN LEVINE, individually and on             )  Case No. C-97 20471 EAI
    behalf of all others similarly situated,        )
                                                    )
                   Plaintiff,                       )  Date: August 25, 1997
                                                    )  Time: 10:00 a.m.
         - v. -                                     )  Before: The Honorable
                                                    )       Edward A. Infante
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.                  )
    and JOHN H. GORMAN,                             )
                                                    )
                   Defendants.                      )
    _________________________________________ )
    
            PLAINTIFF'S AND MOVANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION AND
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • GIRARD & GREEN, LLP
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff Lillian Levine and Movants Mustafa Bengali, Matthew Sutphin,
  • 408-4600 Attorneys for Movants Bruce Wolitarsky and Carol Wolitarsky
  • PLAINTIFF'S AND MOVANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
  • OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS AND FOR APPROVAL OF CHOICE OF CO-LEAD
  • The Allegations Against Defendants As Contained In The Levine And Wolitarsky Complaints
  • The Levine And Wolitarsky Complaints Are The Only
  • This Court Should Approve Movants' Choice of Co-lead Counsel
  • PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Lillian Levine, Mustafa Bengali, Matthew Sutphin, Peter Kanevsky,
  • Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
  • This class action alleges violations of Sections 10and 20of the Securities Exchange Act of
  • Section 21Dof the PSLRA directs that:
  • and shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the purported plaintiff class
  • The Movants also bring this motion for approval of their choice of co-lead counsel, Goodkind
  • The Complaints allege that during the Class Period, the Company's press releases, as well as
  • Defendants' dissemination of financial misrepresentations concerning Nuko's 1997 first fiscal
  • Indeed, Movants here are the only putative Class members who have filed Complaints in this
  • Thus, typicality is satisfied, since the claims asserted by the proposed lead plaintiffs

  • 15 . DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO MOTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    LEAD PLAINTIFF
    COUNSEL
    INVESTORS
    MOVANTS
    REFORM ACT
    SECURITIES
    COURT
    LITIGATION
    CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
    ATTORNEYS
    CONTROL
    APPOINTMENT
    LAW FIRMS
    CERTIFICATION
    SERVE
    NUKO
    STAKES
    CLASS MEMBERS
    LAWYERS
    CONFLICT
    CALIFORNIA MICRO DEVICES
    REQUEST
    DEFENDANTS
    DEFEAT
    PURPOSE
    COLLECTIVE LEAD PLAINTIFF
    CO-LEAD COUNSEL
    NUKO STOCK
    CO-LIAISON COUNSEL
    
    
    
    LATHAM & WATKINS
    Marc W. Rappel (Bar No. 97032)
      James J. Farrell (Bar No. 166595)
      633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
    Los Angeles, California 90071-2007
    Telephone: (213) 485-1234
    Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
     Attorneys for Defendants
    
    
                                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                     NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    LILLIAN LEVINE, individually and on           | CASE NO. C-97 20471 EAI
    behalf of all others similarly situated,      |
                                                  | DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
                   Plaintiff,                     | APPOINTMENT OF LEAD PLAINTIFF AND LEAD
                                                  | COUNSEL
         v.                                       |
                                                  |
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC.,  |
    and JOHN H. GORMAN,                           |
                                                  | Date: August 25, 1997
                   Defendants.                    | Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                  | Place: Courtroom of the Hon. Edward A. Infante
    ___________________________________  |
    
    
                        MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
                                                         I.
    
                                                 INTRODUCTION
    
    Defendant NUKO Information Systems, Inc. ("NUKO") is a high tech start up company
    which designs and distributes advanced devices that enhance the transmission and
    reception of video signals. NUKO revised its first quarter 1997 earnings and revenue
    figures on May 21, 1997. As is typical in these cases, plaintiffs rely on the benefit of
    hindsight to make out a securities claim on these facts, contending that NUKO's earlier
    earnings and revenue figures must have been deliberately overstated to mislead investors.
    
    In their pending motion, plaintiffs and movants request that the Court appoint all seven of
    them -- and all four of their law firms -- as lead plaintiff and class counsel, respectively.
    Combining all of the plaintiffs and movants as lead plaintiff will expand the power of
    plaintiffs' counsel to control the prosecution of this case, and defeat one of the aims of the
    Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-67 (1995) (the
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Defendant NUKO Information Systems, Inc. is a high tech start up company which designs and
  • As is typical in these cases, plaintiffs rely on the benefit of hindsight to make out a
  • In their pending motion, plaintiffs and movants request that the Court appoint all seven of
  • Combining all of the plaintiffs and movants as lead plaintiff will expand the power of
  • attorneys sometimes used several plaintiffs with small individual stakes as "puppet" class
  • To defeat this tactic, Congress included in the Reform Act revisions governing the selection
  • The Conference Committee seeks to increase the likelihood that institutional investors will
  • To allow an aggregation of unrelated plaintiffs to serve as lead plaintiff defeats the
  • Appointing lead plaintiff on the basis of financial interest, rather than on a first come,
  • A plaintiff cannot be an adequate lead plaintiff if its interests conflict with the
  • See also In re California Micro Devices Sec. Litig., 168 F.R.D. 257, 271-272 (N.D.
  • Plaintiff Lillian Levine, and movants SML Realty Trust and Peter Kanevsky, all certified that
  • These conflicts between equity holders and non-equity holders may not preclude class
  • Allowing four separate law firms to serve as "co-lead counsel" or "co-liaison counsel" is
  • For the foregoing reasons, defendants oppose the appointment of all plaintiffs and movants as

  • 16 . DECLARATION OF ROBERT S GREEN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PETER
    CAROL WOLITARSKY
    MEMBER
    LEAD PLAINTIFF
    SECURITIES
    EXCHANGE ACT
    PURPORTED CLASS
    COURT
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS
    JOHN
    LLP
    YORK
    MOVANTS
    MUSTAFA BENGALI
    MATTHEW SUTPHIN
    PETER KANEVSKY
    PETER MUSTO
    LAWS
    GIRARD
    ROBERT
    ATTORNEYS
    PLAINTIFF LILLIAN LEVINE
    MILSTEIN
    BRUCE WOLITARSKY
    DECLARATION
    MOTION
    APPOINTMENT
    PSLRA
    DIRECTS
    
    
    
    GIRARD & GREEN, LLP
    Robert S. Green (SBN 136183)
    160 Sansome Street, Suite 300
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Telephone: (415) 981-4800
     GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF
      & SUCHAROW LLP
    Jonathan M. Plasse
    James M. Strauss
    Catherine A. Murphy
    100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
    New York, New York 10017-5563
    Telephone: (212) 907-0700
     Attorneys for Plaintiff Lillian Levine and
    Movants Mustafa Bengali, Matthew Sutphin,
    Peter Kanevsky and Peter Musto
     COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD
      & TOLL, P.L.L.C
    Herbert E. Milstein
    Daniel S. Sommers
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
    West Tower, Suite 500
    Washington, D.C. 20005-3964
    Telephone: (202) 408-4600
     Attorneys for Movants Bruce Wolitarsky
    and Carol Wolitarsky
    
                                   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    LILLIAN LEVINE, individually and on             )  Case No. C-97 20471 EAI
    behalf of all others similarly situated,        )
                                                    )  DECLARATION OF ROBERT S.
                   Plaintiff,                       )  GREEN IN SUPPORT OF
                                                    )  MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT
         - v. -                                     )  OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS AND
                                                    )  FOR APPROVAL OF CHOICE
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.                  )  OF CO-LEAD COUNSEL
    and JOHN H. GORMAN,                             )
                                                    )  Date: August 25, 1997
                   Defendants.                      )  Time: 10:00 a.m.
    _________________________________________ )  Before: The Honorable
                                                            Edward A. Infante
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW LLP
  • New York, New York 10017-5563 Telephone:
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff Lillian Levine and Movants Mustafa Bengali, Matthew Sutphin,
  • Peter Kanevsky and Peter Musto
  • COHEN MILSTEIN HAUSFELD & TOLL,
  • 408-4600 Attorneys for Movants Bruce Wolitarsky and Carol Wolitarsky
  • ROBERT S. GREEN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
  • I am a member of the law firm of Girard & Green, LLP, co-counsel for Plaintiff in this action.
  • I submit this declaration in support of the motion by Plaintiff Lillian Levine and proposed
  • On December 22, 1995, Congress amended the Exchange Act to include a new Section 21D which,
  • Section 21Dof the PSLRA provides that, within 20 days after the date on which a class action
  • Section 21Dof the PSLRA directs that:
  • the court shall consider any motion made by a purported class member in response to the
  • Against Nuko Information Systems, Inc. and John H. Gorman dated May 23, 1997

  • 17 . RELATED CASE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    LEVINE ACTION
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS
    JUDGE
    TABACCO
    MILSTEIN
    TOLL
    PLAINTIFFS
    FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS
    BERMAN
    DEVALERIO
    PEASE
    HAUSFELD
    DEFENDANTS
    SEEKING DAMAGES
    VIOLATIONS
    GORMAN
    BRUCE WOLITARSKY
    CAROL WOLITARSKY
    INFANTE
    UNDERLYING FACTS
    CIVIL DOCKET SHEET
    PRELIMINARY STAGE
    REFERENCE
    PREJUDICE
    PARTIES
    FOREGOING REASONS
    WOLITARSKY RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS
    MAGISTRATE JUDGE EDWARD
    PENDING
    
    
    
    Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. (75484)
    BERMAN, DeVALERIO, PEASE & TABACCO
    425 California Street, Suite 2025
    San Francisco, CA 94104-2205
    Telephone: (415) 433-3200
    
    Herbert E. Milstein
    Daniel S. Sommers
    COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C.
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
    West Tower, Suite 500
    Washington, D.C. 20005-3964
    Telephone: (202) 408-4600
    
    Steven J. Toll
    COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C.
    1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2905
    Seattle, WA 98101
    Telephone (206) 521-0080
    
    Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    
    BRUCE WOLITARSKY and                            )
    CAROL WOLITARSKY, individually                  )
    and on behalf of all others                     )
    similarly situated,                             ) Civil Action No.
                                                    ) [C-97-2355]
                          Plaintiffs,               ) NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
               v.                                   )) [filed Jun. 24, 1997]
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,  )
    PRATAP K. KONDAMOORI and                        )
    JOHN H. GORMAN                                  ))
                          Defendants.               )
    _____________________________________ ))
    PLAINTIFFS HEREBY GIVES NOTICE pursuant to Local Rule 3-12 that this action
    which is being filed concurrently herewith (the "Wolitarsky" action) and an action
    captioned Levin v. Nuko Information Systems, Inc. et al., Case Number C97 20471 (EAI)
    (the "Levine" action), filed on May 28, 1997 in this Court, are related.
    
    The Wolitarsky action and the Levine action are related because they appear to arise from
    the same or substantially identical transactions, happenings or events and involve most of
    the same defendants. They call for determination of the same or substantially identical
    questions of law and fact. The Levine action was brought by Lillian Levine, on Behalf of
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • BERMAN, DeVALERIO, PEASE & TABACCO
  • Herbert E. Milstein Daniel S. Sommers
  • COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C.
  • Steven J. Toll
  • Attorneys for Plaintiffs
  • PLAINTIFFS HEREBY GIVES NOTICE pursuant to Local Rule 3-12 that this action which is being
  • The Wolitarsky action and the Levine action are related because they appear to arise from the
  • Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, seeking damages for alleged violations of the
  • Judicial economy mandates the same judge handle both cases rather than different judges who
  • It appears from the civil docket sheet in the Levine action that the Levine action is at a
  • For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs Bruce Wolitarsky and Carol Wolitarsky respectfully
  • FTP'd file from Berman, Devalerio, Pease & Tabacco

  • 18 . COMPLAINT B

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    CLASS ACTION
    DEFENDANTS
    ACT
    ACCOUNTING
    COMMON STOCK
    CLASS PERIOD
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    REVENUE
    MISLEADING
    MEMBERS
    ATTORNEYS
    UNITED STATES
    DISTRICT
    COURT
    DISSEMINATION
    MATERIALLY FALSE
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS
    SECURITIES
    MATERIAL FACTS
    KONDAMOORI
    ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE
    STOCK OPTIONS
    HAUSFELD
    CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
    NEWS ARTICLES
    FINANCIAL CONDITION
    RECKLESS DISREGARD
    
    
    
    Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. (75484)
    BERMAN, DeVALERIO, PEASE & TABACCO
    425 California Street, Suite 2025
    San Francisco, CA 94104-2205
    Telephone: (415) 433-3200
    
    Herbert E. Milstein
    Daniel S. Sommers
    COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C.
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
    West Tower, Suite 500
    Washington, D.C. 20005-3964
    Telephone: (202) 408-4600
    
    Steven J. Toll
    COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C.
    1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2905
    Seattle, WA 98101
    Telephone (206) 521-0080
    
    Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    
                                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    BRUCE WOLITARSKY and                             )
    CAROL WOLITARSKY, individually                   )
    and on behalf of all others                      )
    similarly situated,                              ) Civil Action No.
                                                     ) [C-97-2355]
                          Plaintiffs,                ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
               v.                                    )) [filed Jun. 24, 1997]
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.,  ) Jury Trial Demanded
    PRATAP K. KONDAMOORI and                         )
    JOHN H. GORMAN                                   ))
                          Defendants.                )
    _____________________________________ ))
    Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, for their Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint"), allege
    the following upon personal knowledge as to themselves and to their own acts, and upon
    information and belief based upon the investigation of plaintiffs' attorneys as to all other
    matters. The investigation includes the review and analysis of public statements,
    publicly-filed documents of Nuko Information Systems, Inc. ("Nuko" or the "Company"),
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C.
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, for their Class Action Complaint, allege the following upon
  • The investigation includes the review and analysis of public statements, publicly-filed
  • news articles and the review and analysis of accounting rules and related literature.
  • This is a securities class action on behalf of public investors who purchased the common
  • This case involves a scheme in which defendants, among other wrongful acts, disseminated
  • The financial misrepresentations disseminated by defendants during the Class Period permitted
  • As a result of this scheme, plaintiffs and other unsuspecting members of the investing public
  • This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 27 of the Securities
  • Nuko is headquartered in this District in San Jose, California, and many of the acts giving
  • In connection with the wrongs alleged herein, defendants used the instrumentalities of
  • Defendant Pratap K. Kondamoori was at all relevant times President, Chief Executive Officer
  • Part of Gorman's compensation package at Nuko included the granting of stock options to him,
  • By virtue of their positions as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
  • the actions of the Individual Defendants during the Class Period caused the material
  • Revenue in the quarter was $4.2 million, as compared to $0.2 million for the same period in
  • During the Class Period, defendants materially misled the investing public, thereby inflating
  • Said statements and omissions were materially false and misleading in that they failed to
  • The following factors indicate that defendants made the misrepresentations knowingly or with

  • 19 . COMPLAINT A

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COMMON STOCK
    PLAINTIFF
    CLASS ACTION
    ACT
    SECURITIES
    DEFENDANTS
    ACCOUNTING
    CLASS PERIOD
    GORMAN
    INVESTORS
    REVENUE
    MISLEADING
    MEMBERS
    ATTORNEYS
    DISSEMINATION
    MATERIALLY FALSE
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS
    CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
    MATERIAL FACTS
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
    ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE
    SUCHAROW LLP
    THOROUGH REVIEW
    NEWS ARTICLES
    STOCK OPTIONS
    FINANCIAL CONDITION
    PUBLIC REPRESENTATIONS
    PRIVATE PLACEMENT
    RECKLESS DISREGARD
    
    
    
    GIRARD & GREEN, LLP
    Robert S. Green, Esq. (CA Bar 136183)
    160 Sansome Street, Suite 300
    San Francisco, CA 94104
    Telephone: (415) 981-4800
    
    GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF
      & SUCHAROW LLP
    Jonathan M. Plasse
    James M. Strauss
    Catherine A. Murphy
    100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
    New York, New York 10017-5563
    Telephone: (212) 907-0700
    
    Attorneys for Plaintiff
    
                                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    LILLIAN LEVINE, individually and on                 )   Civil Action No. 97-CV-20471
    behalf of all others similarly situated,            ) )  Jury Trial Demanded
                   Plaintiff,                           )  COMPLAINT
              - v. -                                    ) )  [filed May 23, 1997]
    NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.  )  CLASS ACTION
    and JOHN H. GORMAN,                                 ) )
                   Defendants.                          )
    ____________________________________ ) )
    1. Plaintiff, by her attorneys, for her Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint"), alleges
    the following upon personal knowledge as to herself and to her own acts, and upon
    information and belief based upon the investigation of plaintiff's attorneys as to all other
    matters. The investigation includes the thorough review and analysis of public
    statements, publicly-filed documents of Nuko Information Systems, Inc., ("Nuko" or the
    "Company"), press releases, news articles and the review and analysis of accounting rules
    and related literature.
    
                                        SUMMARY OF ACTION
    2. This is a securities class action on behalf of public investors who purchased the
    common stock of Nuko during the period from April 24, 1997 through May 20, 1997 (the
    
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW LLP
  • NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.) CLASS ACTION
  • Plaintiff, by her attorneys, for her Class Action Complaint, alleges the following upon
  • The investigation includes the thorough review and analysis of public statements,
  • On May 20, 1997, the end of the Class Period, defendants unexpectedly announced that a
  • The financial misrepresentations disseminated by defendants during the Class Period permitted
  • As a result of this scheme, plaintiff and other unsuspecting members of the investing public
  • This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant Section 27 of the Securities Exchange
  • Nuko is headquartered in this District in San Jose, California, and many of the acts giving
  • As of April 30, 1997, Gorman owned or controlled 166,666 shares of Nuko's approximately 10.7
  • Part of Gorman's compensation package at Nuko included the granting of stock options to him,
  • By virtue of his position as chief financial officer of the Company, Gorman had the authority
  • the actions of Gorman during the Class Period caused the material misstatement of the
  • Gorman was aware of the contents of the Company's publicly disseminated press releases and
  • The private placement was between the Company and RGC International Investors, LDC, and was
  • Revenue in the quarter was $4.2 million, as compared to $0.2 million for the same period in
  • During the Class Period, defendants materially misled the investing public, thereby inflating
  • Said statements and omissions were materially false and misleading in that they failed to
  • The following factors indicate that defendants made the misrepresentations knowingly or with

  • 20 . ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    DEFENDANTS DENY
    PARAGRAPH
    COMPLAINT
    PLAINTIFFS
    DOCUMENT SPEAKS
    NUKO
    CHARACTERIZATIONS
    INCOMPLETE
    DIFFER
    TRUTH
    LATHAM
    WATKIN
    DEFENDANTS ADMIT
    RESTATEMENT
    STOCK
    PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE
    DISCLOSURES
    SECURITIES
    EXCHANGE
    LOS ANGELES
    PUBLICATIONS
    FILINGS
    INTERNEXT
    CONTRACT
    COMPENSATION
    APPLICABLE FASB STATEMENT
    PURPORTS
    CALIFORNIA
    
    1           T
    
    
    
    
                                     1  LATHAM & WATKINS
                                             Marc W. Rappel (Bar No. 97032)
                                     2       James J. Farrell (Bar No. 166595)
                                           633  West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
                                     3  Los Angeles, California  90071 -2007
                                           Telephone: (213) 485-1234
                                     4  Facsimile: (2 13) 89 1-8763
    
                                     5  Attorneys  for Defendants
                                           John Gorman and Pratap K. Kondamoori
                                     6
    
                                     7
                                     8                                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                     9                               NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                10  In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS,  Master File No. C-97 20471 EAI
                                11  INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION                              CLASS ACTION
                                12
                                13                                                          ANSWER OF
                                                                                            KONDAMOORI
                                14                                                          SECOND
    
                                15  This Document Relates To: All Actions
                                16
    
                                17                        Defendants Pratap K. Kondamoori and John
                                18  hereby answer Plaintiffs' Seconded Amended Complaint (the
                                19                        1.     Defendants lack knowledge or
                                20  the truth of the allegations in paragraph 1 , and therefore deny
                                21                                                SUMMARY OF ACTION
                                22                        2.     Defendants admit that Plaintiffs
                                23  Sections 1O(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act  of 1934,
                                24  Defendants also admit  that NUKO Information Systems, Inc. ("NUKO")
                                25  on April 24, 1997. The April 24 press release speaks for itself.
                                26  herein, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 2 of the
                                27                        3.     Defendants admit that, on May 21,
                                28
          LATHAM & WATKIN,                                                                     Answer
            ATTORNEYS  AT L A W                                                                John
               LOS  ANGELES
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • 10 In re NUKO INFORMATION SYSTEMS, Master File No. C-97 20471 EAI
  • 18 hereby answer Plaintiffs' Seconded Amended Complaint as follows:
  • 20 the truth of the allegations in paragraph 1,
  • 23 Sections 1Oand 20of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. $5 78jand 78t.
  • 24 Defendants also admit that NUKO Information Systems, Inc. issued a press release
  • Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
  • Defendants admit that NUKO's stock price on a specific
  • 22 Plaintiffs purport to bring this action pursuant to Sections 1Oand 20of the Securities
  • LATHAM & WATKINC
  • 27 offices at 2391 Qume Drive, San Jose, California.
  • LATHAM & WATKIN:
  • Defendants admit that their compensation from NUKO, including salary and stock, is
  • 10 Defendants deny Plaintiffs' attempt to distort and mischaracterize such compensation.
  • certain of the options that Plaintiffs allege were owned and controlled by Defendants
  • is accurately described in NUKO's public filings with the Securities
  • 25 contents of NUKO's press releases and public disclosures related to NUKO's financial
  • NUKO and Internext Compression Inc..
  • That document speaks for itself.
  • extent that the allegations are incomplete, differ from the text of the written contract, or
  • Plaintiffs' characterizations, Defendants deny those allegations.
  • 17 contract between NUKO and Internext.
  • 10 and that NUKO discussed that restatement with its independent accountants prior to the
  • paragraph 60 of the Complaint purports to summarize and quote the
  • 11 applicable FASB statement, are incomplete, or reflect Plaintiffs' characterizations,
  • 10 filings, press releases, announcements, reports of analysts, news articles and other
  • Suite 4000, Los Angeles, California 90071.
  •    |