LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

OAK TECHNOLOGY Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: OT75909, CourtName: CLASS ACTION CASES, State: CA California, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>OT75909, Oak Common Stock, Oak, Facts, Market, Securities, Misleading, Allegations, Motion, Oak Defendants, Complaint, Price, Standard, Cir, Shares, Particularity, California, San Francisco, Revenue, Stock, Omissions, Class Period, Plaintiffs Fail, Dismiss, Cd-rom Controller, Trading, Opposition, Supp, Reform Act, Analyst, Reports, Oak Technology, Securities Analysts, United States, Dismiss Plaintiffs, Entry, Memorandum, Financials, Chip, Analyst Reports, Sales, Technology, Analysts, Allege , ContentID: 120246235

Case Documents
1   SUPPLEMENTAL IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114670
10 pages
PDF
2   SUPP SUBMISSION OF AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114669
7 pages
PDF
3   MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114656
18 pages
PDF
4   MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114655
24 pages
PDF
5   LITIGANTS B
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114654
3 pages
PDF
6   LITIGANTS A
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114653
3 pages
PDF
7   DECLARATION OF KIMBERLY C EPSTEIN IN OPPOSITION MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114649
3 pages
PDF
8 2000-04 REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114666
12 pages
PDF
9 2000-04 APPENDIX OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114642
3 pages
PDF
10 1998-04-20 CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE 96-CV-20552
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114643
18 pages
PDF
11 1997-12-10 MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114660
44 pages
PDF
12 1997-11-21 REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114667
29 pages
PDF
13 1997-11-21 DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114651
4 pages
PDF
14 1997-10-10 ERRATA TO MEMO FILED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114652
6 pages
PDF
15 1997-09-04 CONSOLIDATED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114648
113 pages
PDF
16 1997-08-14 ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114663
13 pages
PDF
17 1997-06-04 CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE 96-CV-20720
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114645
7 pages
PDF
18 1997-05-21 SUPP APPENDIX IN SUPPORT MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114668
2 pages
PDF
19 1997-05-21 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114665
4 pages
PDF
20 1997-05-21 PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114664
6 pages
PDF
21 1997-05-21 OBJECTION TO THE DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114662
8 pages
PDF
22 1997-05-21 MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114659
75 pages
PDF
23 1997-05-21 MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114658
25 pages
PDF
24 1997-05-21 MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114657
85 pages
PDF
25 1997-05-21 DECLARATION OF RINA PEDROZA IN OPPOSITION MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114650
4 pages
PDF
26 1997-01-31 CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114647
67 pages
PDF
27 1996-12-21 CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE 96-CV-20729
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114646
3 pages
PDF
28 1996-12-21 CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE 96-CV-20685
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114644
6 pages
PDF
29 1996-08-22 NOTICE
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 114661
54 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 29 documents , 656 pages
Price: $ 159.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . SUPPLEMENTAL IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT
DEFENDANTS
OPPOSITION
EXHIBIT
SAN
PLEADING
ALLEGE
RECKLESSNESS
BINDER
CCH
SCIENTER
FACTS
LLP
SAN DIEGO
SAN FRANCISCO
COMPLAINT
STANDARD
SECURITIES
MOTION
ALLEGATIONS
PSLRA
COTCHETT
PITRE
DISTRICT
CALIFORNIA
OAK DEFENDANTS
DISMISS
SCHLAGEL
INFERENCE




MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD

HYNES & LERACH LLP

ALAN SCHULMAN (128661)

MARK SOLOMON (151949)

ARTHUR C. LEAHY (149135)

KAREN L. THOMAS (149536)

600 West Broadway, Suite 1800

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: 619/231-1058

- and -

KAREN T. ROGERS (185465)

355 South Grand Avenue

Suite 4170

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: 213/617-9007

- and -

KIMBERLY C. EPSTEIN (169012)

222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94108

Telephone: 415/288-4545


GOLD BENNETT & CERA LLP

PAUL F. BENNETT (63318)
SNIPPETS:
  • San Diego, CA 92101
  • San Francisco, CA 94108
  • GOLD BENNETT & CERA LLP
  • COTCHETT, PITRE & SIMON
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF AUTHORITY
  • Plaintiffs respectfully submit true and correct copies of the following exhibits in support
  • Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶90,410 (C.D.
  • The Oakley court found that defendants may be held directly liable for statements to analysts.
  • Exhibit B: Schlagel v. Learning Tree Int'l, [Current Binder] Fed.
  • The Schlagel court held that, under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
  • The Schlagel court further held that premature revenue recognition permits an inference of
  • With regard to falsity, the court held that it is enough under the PSLRA to plead the "exact
  • The Walsingham court found that plaintiff alleged facts that constituted strong
  • The Retsky court held that the PSLRA adopts the Second Circuit standard, but does not require
  • In Press, the court held "s a pleading requirement, a plaintiff must either allege facts to

  • 2 . SUPP SUBMISSION OF AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    COURT
    LERACH LLP
    UNITED STATES
    SECURITIES LITIGATION
    OPPOSITION
    UNIFORM STANDARDS
    UNIFORM STANDARDS ACT
    CIR
    BENNETT
    COTCHETT
    PITRE
    CALIFORNIA
    AUTHORITY
    DECLARE
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    HYNES
    MARK SOLOMON
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION
    DEFENDANTS
    MOTION
    DISMISS PLAINTIFFS
    SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
    PRESIDENT
    HERETO
    EXHIBIT
    SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
    AMICUS
    
    
    
    
    
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    
    HYNES & LERACH LLP
    
    ALAN SCHULMAN (128661)
    
    MARK SOLOMON (151949)
    
    ARTHUR C. LEAHY (149135)
    
    KAREN L. THOMAS (149536)
    
    JOHN D. BANDIERA (171074)
    
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    
    San Diego, CA 92101
    
    Telephone: 619/231-1058
    
    - and -
    
    KAREN T. ROGERS (185465)
    
    355 South Grand Avenue
    
    Suite 4170
    
    Los Angeles, CA 90071
    
    Telephone: 213/617-9007
    
    - and -
    
    KIMBERLY C. EPSTEIN (169012)
    
    222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
    
    San Francisco, CA 94108
    
    Telephone: 415/288-4545
    
    
    GOLD BENNETT & CERA LLP
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
  • HYNES & LERACH LLP
  • MARK SOLOMON
  • San Francisco, CA 94108
  • GOLD BENNETT & CERA LLP
  • COTCHETT, PITRE & SIMON
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION OF AUTHORITY
  • Plaintiffs respectfully submit the following supplemental submission of authority in support
  • On November 3, 1998, President Clinton signed into law the Securities Litigation Uniform
  • No. 105-803 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and President Clinton's November 3, 1998
  • A copy of the SEC's supplemental memorandum is attached hereto as Exhibit C.The supplemental
  • PURSUANT TO NORTHERN DISTRICT LOCAL RULE 23-2
  • I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
  • The Court may take judicial notice and consider the language and legislative history of a
  • Sept. 25, 1996), aff'd, 146 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir.
  • Courts have noted the contents of amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court while

  • 3 . MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    SECURITIES
    MOTION
    STOCK
    SAN FRANCISCO
    DISMISS
    ANALYST REPORTS
    HSU
    DEFENDANTS
    HAMBRECHT
    COMPLAINT
    CIR
    MARKET
    BUSINESS
    SCHEME
    MISLEADING
    COMPLAINT ALLEGES
    LERACH LLP
    CO-LEAD COUNSEL
    DISSEMINATING
    PARTICIPATION
    PLAINTIFFS PLEAD
    ALLEGATIONS
    OPPOSITION
    GOLD BENNETT
    COTCHETT
    PITRE
    OAK TECHNOLOGY
    STOCK SALES
    
    
    
    
    
           Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss of
                                              Hambrecht & Quist
     MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    HYNES & LERACH LLP
    ALAN SCHULMAN (128661)
    MARK SOLOMON (151949)
    ARTHUR C. LEAHY (149135)
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Telephone: 619/231-1058
    - and -
    KIMBERLY C. EPSTEIN (169012)
    222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94108
    Telephone: 415/288-4545
      GOLD BENNETT & CERA LLP
    PAUL F. BENNETT (63318)
    GEORGE S. TREVOR (127875)
    RENA PEDROZA (181889)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2300
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: 415/777-2230
      COTCHETT & PITRE
    JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (36324)
    FRANK M. PITRE (100077)
    STEVEN C. KELLER (94102)
    San Francisco Airport
    Office Center
    840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
    Burlingame, CA 94010
    Telephone: 415/697-6000
      Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
    
                                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                       NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                                SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP ALAN SCHULMAN MARK SOLOMON ARTHUR C. LEAHY
  • San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone:
  • GOLD BENNETT & CERA LLP PAUL F. BENNETT GEORGE S. TREVOR RENA PEDROZA
  • COTCHETT & PITRE JOSEPH W. COTCHETT FRANK M. PITRE STEVEN C. KELLER
  • 415/697-6000 Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • In re OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
  • OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF HAMBRECHT & QUIST
  • Plaintiffs Adequately Plead That The Underwriters Lacked A Reasonable Basis For Certain
  • E. The Plaintiffs Plead That H&Q's Analyst Reports Were Disseminated To The Market With
  • F. The Plaintiffs Plead H&Q's Primary Liability For Knowingly Disseminating
  • The Complaint alleges a complex web of relationships among the H&Q entities and Oak entities
  • H&Q served as co-lead underwriter of Oak stock offerings in February and May 1995, generating
  • As a condition of obtaining this lead underwriting business from Oak, H&Q agreed to have its
  • In addition to being a Managing Director of H&Q, Hsu also managed Hanmore Venture Capital
  • These allegations are anything but "vague or conclusory," and easily satisfy this Circuit's
  • In asserting that their analyst reports are not actionable, H&Q disregards its direct
  • It is only when defendants have not actually participated in the fraud that the lack of a
  • 1992), aff'd, 11 F.3d 865 (9th Cir.
  • The specific allegations regarding H&Q and its utilization of Hsu as its eyes and ears
  • H&Q's $25 million in stock sales through Hsu were concentrated between August and November
  • Given that Oak itself as well as the other individual defendants can and should be held

  • 4 . MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    ANALYST REPORTS
    UNITED STATES
    MARKET
    COURT
    DISSEMINATION
    CIR
    OAK
    STOCK
    PLEAD
    HSU
    MOTION
    DISMISS
    DEFENDANTS
    SAN DIEGO
    SAFE HARBOR
    FACTS
    SECURITIES
    LIABILITY
    COMPLAINT
    HAMBRECHT
    CLASS PERIOD
    CALIFORNIA
    MISLEADING STATEMENTS
    INFERENCE
    ALLEGATIONS
    COMPLAINT ALLEGES
    ADVERSE FACTS
    DIRECTORS
    RETROACTIVITY
    
    
    
    
    
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    HYNES & LERACH LLP
    ALAN SCHULMAN (128661)
    MARK SOLOMON (151949)
    ARTHUR C. LEAHY (149135)
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Telephone: 619/231-1058
         - and -
    KIMBERLY C. EPSTEIN (169012)
    222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94108
    Telephone: 415/288-4545
    
    GOLD BENNETT & CERA LLP
    PAUL F. BENNETT (63318)
    GEORGE S. TREVOR (127875)
    RENA PEDROZA (181889)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2300
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: 415/777-2230
    
    COTCHETT & PITRE
    JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (36324)
    FRANK M. PITRE (100077)
    STEVEN C. KELLER (94102)
    San Francisco Airport
    Office Center
    840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
    Burlingame, CA 94010
    Telephone: 415/697-6000
    
    Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
    
                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                        NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                       SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    
    
    In re OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC.               Master File No.
    SECURITIES LITIGATION                    C-96-20552-SW(PVT)
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • The Plaintiffs Properly Plead That H&Q's Analyst Reports Were Disseminated To The Market
  • H&Q Failed To Steer Within Any Safe Harbor
  • The Facts Alleged Show That H&Q And Hsu Were Privy To Material Nonpublic Information When Hsu
  • Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States,
  • 994 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir.
  • In its motion to dismiss, Hambrecht & Quist Inc. raises four arguments.
  • 1997), on pleading the liability of professionals, for securities fraud.
  • H&Q also pointedly ignores many of the Consolidated Second Amended Complaint's detailed
  • In sum, H&Q presents a myopic view of the law that defies both precedent and common sense
  • Turning to scienter, H&Q pretends that all of its statements are forward-looking; it assumes
  • As to the pleading of falsity, plaintiffs have alleged in meticulous detail many of the true,
  • The Complaint alleges an intimate series of relationships among the H&Q entities and Oak
  • Hsu served on Oak's Board of Directors for the purpose of representing H&Q's interests as a
  • H&Q was a "market maker" in Oak stock and purchased and sold Oak stock on a daily basis
  • The Ninth Circuit has consistently upheld complaints alleging that corporate defendants
  • "Changes in procedural rules," on the other hand, "may often be applied in suits arising
  • By negative inference, petitioners argued, amendments made by other sections of the Act did
  • That declarant is and was, at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and

  • 5 . LITIGANTS B

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DISTRICT
    HANMORE
    AKA
    HANTECH
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    CALIFORNIA
    SAN JOSE
    OAK TECHNOLOGY
    DAVID
    TSANG
    TANIGUCHI
    ABEL
    DONALD BRYSON
    SIDNEY FAULKNER
    WEN-CHANG
    TA-LIN HSU
    MOU HSIN YANG
    RICHARD BLACK
    KENJI FUJIMOTO
    INVESTMENT COMPANY
    TAIWAN
    HAMBRECHT
    
    
    
    
    
    
    5:96cv20685             Raskin v. Oak Technology Inc, et al
    
                                                                           CONSOL
                                     U.S. District Court
    U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
    
    
    MICHAEL RASKIN, on behalf of                Jeffrey F. Keller
    himself and all others                      [COR LD NTC]
    similarly situated,                         Jeffrey F. Keller Law Offices
               Plaintiff                        221 Main St Ste 1300
                                                San Francisco, CA 94105
                                                415-543-1305
    
    
         v.
    
    
    OAK TECHNOLOGY INC
               defendant
    
    
    DAVID D. TSANG
               defendant
    
    
    BEN T. TANIGUCHI
               defendant
    
    
    ABEL LO
               defendant
    
    
    DONALD BRYSON
               defendant
    
    
    SIDNEY FAULKNER
               defendant
    
    
    WEN-CHANG KO
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
  • OAK TECHNOLOGY INC
  • DAVID D. TSANG
  • BEN T. TANIGUCHI
  • ABEL LO
  • DONALD BRYSON
  • SIDNEY FAULKNER
  • WEN-CHANG KO
  • TA-LIN HSU
  • MOU HSIN YANG
  • RICHARD BLACK
  • KENJI FUJIMOTO
  • HANMORE VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTMENT COMPANY
  • HANTECH VENTURE CAPITAL CORPORATION
  • H & Q TAIWAN CO LTD
  • HAMBRECHT & QUIST

  • 6 . LITIGANTS A

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    NTC
    DEFENDANT
    SARA
    BRODY DEFENDANT
    DISTRICT
    SAN
    BRUNO
    OAK TECHNOLOGY
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    CALIFORNIA
    SAN JOSE
    SIDNEY FAULKNER SARA
    KENJI FUJIMOTO SARA
    RICHARD
    KING SARA
    TIMOTHY TOMLINSON SARA
    HAMBRECHT
    QUIST DARRYL
    RAINS DEFENDANT
    MADISON-RAMSEY
    MORRISON
    FOERSTER LLP
    SAN FRANCISCO
    
    
    
    5:96cv20552   Bruno v. Oak Technology Inc, et al
    
                                                                                     CONSOL
                                     U.S. District Court
    U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
    
    
    CARLO BRUNO, on behalf of                            Mark Solomon
    himself and all others                               [COR LD NTC]
    similarly sistuated                                  Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
               Plaintiff                                 Lerach LLP
                                                         600 W Broadway Ste 1800
                                                         One America Plaza
                                                         San Diego, CA 92101
                                                         (619) 231-1058
    
                                                         Steven C. Keller
                                                         [COR LD NTC]
                                                         Cotchett Pitre & Simon
                                                         840 Malcolm Rd Ste 200
                                                         Burlingame, CA 94010
                                                         (415) 697-6000
    
                                                         George S. Trevor
                                                         [COR LD NTC]
                                                         Gold Bennett & Cerra LLP
                                                         595 Market St Ste 2300
                                                         San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
                                                         (415) 777-2230
    
    
         v.
    
    
    OAK TECHNOLOGY INC                                   Sara B. Brody
               defendant                                 [COR LD NTC]
                                                         Brobeck Phleger & Harrison LLP
                                                         One Market Plaza
                                                         Spear St Tower
                                                         San Francisco, CA 94105
                                                         (415) 442-0900
    
    
    DAVID D. TSANG                                       Sara B. Brody
               defendant                                 (See above)
                                                         [COR LD NTC]
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • 5:96cv20552 Bruno v. Oak Technology Inc,
  • U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
  • [COR LD NTC]
  • SIDNEY FAULKNER Sara B. Brody defendant
  • KENJI FUJIMOTO Sara B. Brody defendant
  • RICHARD L. KING Sara B. Brody defendant
  • TIMOTHY TOMLINSON Sara B. Brody defendant
  • HAMBRECHT & QUIST Darryl P. Rains defendant
  • April Madison-Ramsey
  • Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • San Francisco, CA 94105-2482

  • 7 . DECLARATION OF KIMBERLY C EPSTEIN IN OPPOSITION MOTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SAN FRANCISCO
    CALIFORNIA
    EPSTEIN
    PLAINTIFFS
    SUPPORT
    OPPOSITION
    HAMBRECHT
    MOTION
    DISMISS
    LERACH LLP
    LAW
    EXHIBIT
    UNITED STATES
    THEREOF
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    HYNES
    BENNETT
    COTCHETT
    PITRE
    COUNSEL
    PRACTICE
    PENALTY
    PERJURY
    FOREGOING
    AGE
    PARTY
    BUSINESS
    KEARNY STREET
    FLOOR
    
    
    
    
    
           Declaration of Kimberly C. Epstein in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to
                               Hambrecht & Quist's Motion to Dismiss
     MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    HYNES & LERACH LLP
    ALAN SCHULMAN (128661)
    MARK SOLOMON (151949)
    ARTHUR C. LEAHY (149135)
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Telephone: 619/231-1058
    - and -
    KIMBERLY C. EPSTEIN (169012)
    222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94108
    Telephone: 415/288-4545
      GOLD BENNETT & CERA LLP
    PAUL F. BENNETT (63318)
    GEORGE S. TREVOR (127875)
    RENA PEDROZA (181889)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2300
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: 415/777-2230
      COTCHETT & PITRE
    JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (36324)
    FRANK M. PITRE (100077)
    STEVEN C. KELLER (94102)
    San Francisco Airport
    Office Center
    840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
    Burlingame, CA 94010
    Telephone: 415/697-6000
      Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
    
                                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                       NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                                SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Declaration of Kimberly C. Epstein in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to
  • San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone:
  • GOLD BENNETT & CERA LLP PAUL F. BENNETT GEORGE S. TREVOR RENA PEDROZA
  • COTCHETT & PITRE JOSEPH W. COTCHETT FRANK M. PITRE STEVEN C. KELLER
  • 415/697-6000 Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
  • OPPOSITION TO HAMBRECHT & QUIST'S MOTION TO DISMISS
  • I am an associate with the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, counsel for
  • I am duly admitted to practice in the State of California and before this Court.
  • Exhibit A: Francis v. United Jersey Bank,
  • I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
  • That declarant is and was, at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and
  • That on April 18, 1997, declarant served the DECLARATION OF KIMBERLY C. EPSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF

  • 8 . REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    ANALYST
    REPORTS
    OAK
    ALLEGATIONS
    FACTS SHOWING
    ALLEGE
    REASONABLE BASIS
    SECURITIES ANALYSTS
    COURT
    FAIL
    DEFENDANTS
    CONTEMPORANEOUS FACTS
    HAMBRECHT
    TRADING ALLEGATIONS
    DIRECTORS
    INSIDER TRADING
    PLAINTIFFS CITE
    OAK TECHNOLOGY
    SECURITIES ANALYST OWES
    PROJECTIONS
    NON-CUSTOMERS
    RESEARCH REPORTS
    PLAINTIFFS CONTEND
    CCH
    DISSEMINATING FALSE INFORMATION
    CALIFORNIA
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    LEGAL BASIS
    ATTRIBUTING KNOWLEDGE
    
    
    
    DARRYL P. RAINS (NO. 104802)
    MARC J. FAGEL (NO. 154425)
    APRIL MADISON-RAMSEY (NO. 183556)
    MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
    425 Market Street
    San Francisco, California 94105-2482
    Telephone: (415) 268-7000
     Attorneys for Defendant
    Hambrecht & Quist LLC
    
    
                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY                           |   No. CV-96-20552-SW(PVT)
    SECURITIES LITIGATION                          |
                                                   |
    ______________________________________ | HAMBRECHT & QUIST'S REPLY
                                                   | MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
    This Document Relates to: All Actions          | MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS'
                                                   | CONSOLIDATED AMENDED
                                                   | COMPLAINT
                                                   |
                                                   | Date: May 21, 1997
                                                   | Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                   | Judge: Hon. Spencer M. Williams
                                                   |
                                                   |
                                                   |
    ______________________________________ |
    
                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
    
    INTRODUCTION
    
    I. PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGATION THAT HAMBRECHT & QUIST WAS MISLED BY
    OAK TECHNOLOGY PREVENTS THEM FROM STATING A CLAIM AGAINST
    H&Q.
    
    II. SECURITIES ANALYSTS OWE NO DUTY TO NON-CUSTOMERS.
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • California 94105-2482 Telephone: 268-7000 Attorneys for Defendant Hambrecht & Quist LLC
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • SECURITIES ANALYSTS OWE NO DUTY TO NON-CUSTOMERS.
  • PLAINTIFFS DO NOT ALLEGE SPECIFIC FACTS SHOWING HAMBRECHT & QUIST LACKED A REASONABLE BASIS
  • Plaintiffs Cite No Contemporaneous Facts Known to H&Q (Rather Than to Oak Technology) at the
  • The Allegations Concerning One of Oak's Outside Directors Provide No Legal Basis for
  • Plaintiffs' Insider Trading Allegations Fail to Demonstrate That H&Q Lacked a Reasonable
  • plaintiffs fail to rebut authority holding that a securities analyst owes no duty to
  • Finally, plaintiffs' brief points to no specific, factual allegations showing that H&Q lacked
  • plaintiffs contend that the presence of a manager of an H&Q affiliate on Oak's board of
  • Plaintiffs cite no caselaw supporting such a sweeping inference.
  • Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 98,793 (N.D.
  • Plaintiffs further fail to state a claim against H&Q because they do not allege that they
  • proposition that if a company may be held liable for publicly disseminating false information
  • To state a claim against H&Q based on the contents of its analyst reports, plaintiffs must
  • Such a showing can be made by "pointing to inconsistent contemporaneous statements or
  • Several recent Northern District decisions have held similar allegations inadequate to meet

  • 9 . APPENDIX OF AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    CCH
    LITIG
    CALIFORNIA
    HAMBRECHT
    DISTRICT
    AUTHORITIES
    LEXIS
    VALENCE TECH
    WEST REPORTERS
    MEMORANDUM
    SUPPORT
    MOTION
    DISMISS PLAINTIFFS
    CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT
    ANDERSON
    CLOW
    HALLET
    FUNG
    BORICK
    COSTELLO
    ROSS SYS
    SILICON GRAPHICS
    STACK
    LOBO
    STRASSMAN
    FRESH CHOICE
    WALL DATA
    WASH
    XOMA
    
    
    
    DARRYL P. RAINS (NO. 104802)
    MARC J. FAGEL (NO. 154425)
    APRIL MADISON-RAMSEY (NO. 183556)
    MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
    425 Market Street
    San Francisco, California 94105-2482
    Telephone: (415) 268-7000
     Attorneys for Defendant
    Hambrecht & Quist LLC
    
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                     SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY                              |   No. CV-96-20552-SW(PVT)
    SECURITIES LITIGATION                             |
                                                      |
    ______________________________________ | APPENDIX OF AUTHORITIES CITED
                                                      | IN HAMBRECHT & QUIST'S REPLY
    This Document Relates to: All Actions             | MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
                                                      | MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS'
                                                      | CONSOLIDATED AMENDED
                                                      | COMPLAINT
                                                      |
                                                      | Date: May 21, 1997
                                                      | Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                      | Judge: Hon. Spencer M. Williams
                                                      |
                                                      |
    ______________________________________ |
    
    For the Court's convenience, attached to this Appendix are complete and accurate copies
    of all authorities (not published in West reporters) cited in Hambrecht & Quist's Reply
    Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended
    Complaint.
    
                                              CASES
    
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • California 94105-2482 Telephone: 268-7000 Attorneys for Defendant Hambrecht & Quist LLC
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • attached to this Appendix are complete and accurate copies of all authorities (not published
  • Anderson v. Clow, [1994-95 Tr.
  • Binder] Fed.
  • Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 98,367 (S.D.
  • Hallet v. Li & Fung, Ltd., [1996-1997 Tr.
  • May v. Borick, [Current Tr.
  • Rogal v. Costello, [1992-93 Tr.
  • In re Ross Sys.
  • Sec. Litig., [1994-1995 Tr.
  • In re Silicon Graphics, Inc.
  • Stack v. Lobo,
  • LEXIS 19966 (N.D.
  • Strassman v. Fresh Choice,
  • In re Valence Tech.
  • In re Wall Data Sec. Litig.,
  • Wash.
  • In re Xoma Corp.

  • 10 . CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE 96-CV-20552

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    MOTION
    DEFENDANT
    APPOINTMENT
    COUNSEL
    CONSOLIDATE
    COMPLAINT
    DISMISS
    JUDGE SPENCER
    SPENCER WILLIAMS
    CARLO BRUNO
    OPPOSITION
    SENIOR JUDGE
    DECLARATION
    MEMORANDUM
    NOTICE SET
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    ZAND
    OAK TECHNOLOGY
    PLAINTIFF KAMBIZ
    MANAGEMENT
    RECEIVED PROPOSED ORDER
    MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
    CORNEILLE
    AUTHORITIES
    REQUEST
    MEMBER
    STIPULATION
    SUPPORT
    
    
    
    
    Docket as of April 20, 1998 [retrieved 7/13/98]
    
    Proceedings include all events.
    CONSOL
    5:96cv20552       Bruno v. Oak Technology Inc, et al
    
                                                                       CONSOL
                               U.S. District Court
    U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
    
                      CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 96-CV-20552
    
    Bruno v. Oak Technology Inc, et al                                 Filed:
    07/09/96
    Assigned to: Senior Judge Spencer Williams         Jury demand: Both
                     Referred to: Mag. Judge Patricia V. Trumbull
    Demand: $0,000                                     Nature of Suit: 850
    Lead Docket: 96-CV-20552                           Jurisdiction: Federal
    Question
    Dkt# in other court: None
    
    Cause: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act
    
    
    [Party and Counsel List]
    
    
    7/9/96      1        COMPLAINT yes Summons(es) issued; Fee status pd entered
    on
                         7/9/96 in the amount of $ 120.00 ( Receipt No.
    501121);
                         jury demand      [5:96-cv-20552] (jp) [5:96cv20552]
    
    7/9/96      2        ORDER by Senior Judge Spencer Williams Case Management
                         Statement is due 11/7/96 ; Case Management Conference
    set
                         for 2:00 11/14/96 and attached Notice and Standing
    Order ;
                         ( Date Entered: ) (cc: all counsel) [5:96-cv-20552]
    (jp)
                         [5:96cv20552]
    
    8/16/96 3            WAIVER OF SERVICE by defendant Oak Technology Inc,
                         defendant David D. Tsang, defendant Ben T. Taniguchi,
                         defendant Donald Bryson, defendant Sidney Faulkner,
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • [Party and Counsel List]
  • Statement is due 11/7/96; Case Management Conference set
  • defendant David D. Tsang, defendant Ben T. Taniguchi,
  • [Entry date 08/30/96]
  • 5:96-cv-20552 with member cases 5:96-cv-20685 (cc: all
  • 9/6/96 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT by Plaintiff Carlo Bruno,et alin
  • 9/9/96 6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
  • AUTHORITIES before Senior Judge Spencer Williams by
  • lead plaintiffs and appointment of lead plaintiffs'
  • 9/9/96 7 DECLARATION by George S. Trevor on behalf of Plaintiff
  • Plaintiff Kambiz K. Zand in 5:96-cv-20720,
  • Notice set for 11/13/96 at 10:00 [5:96-cv-20552,
  • Barbara Corneille in 5:96-cv-20729) re: declaration
  • 9/10/96 13 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION WITH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
  • Plaintiff Kambiz K. Zand in 5:96-cv-20720, to consolidate
  • 10/23/96 22 OPPOSITION by the Zand and Corneille plaintiffs to motion
  • 10/23/96 29 Statement by defendant Oak Technology Inc in 5:96-cv-20552
  • 1/21/97 40 STIPULATION and ORDER by Senior Judge Spencer Williams
  • defendant Oak Technology Inc in 5:96-cv-20552 to dismiss
  • forijudicial notice of facts in support of their opposition
  • of objection, request, declaration,

  • 11 . MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    OAK
    FACTS
    PLAINTIFFS
    COURT
    SECURITIES
    ALLEGATIONS
    MARKET
    COMPL
    PARTICULARITY
    SUPP
    LITIG
    OMISSIONS
    TECHNOLOGY
    FAULKNER
    TSANG
    TRANSFER BINDER
    CCH
    ALLEGED MISSTATEMENTS
    PSLRA
    MOU HSIN YANG
    KENJI FUJIMOTO
    CONTROLLER CHIPS
    SILICON GRAPHICS
    SECURITIES LAWS
    COMPETITION
    CORPORATE MISMANAGEMENT
    CONCLUSORY
    INDIVIDUAL OAK DEFENDANTS
    TRANSACTIONS
    
    
    
    
    
    TOWER C. SNOW, JR. (State Bar No. 58342)
    SARA B. BRODY (State Bar No. 130222)
    STEPHEN M. KNASTER (State Bar No. 146236)
    PATRICK THOMAS MURPHY (State Bar No. 178189)
    RACHAEL E. MENY (State Bar No. 178514)
    BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
    Spear Street Tower, One Market
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: (415) 442-0900
     Attorneys for Defendants
    Oak Technology, Inc., Richard B. Black,
    Donald R. Bryson, Sidney S. Faulkner,
    Kenji Fujimoto, Ta-Lin Hsu, Richard L. King,
    Wen-Chang Ko, Abel S. Lo, Ben T. Taniguchi,
    Timothy Tomlinson, David D. Tsang,
    and Mou Hsin Yang
    
    
                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES  )   Master File No. C 96-20552 SW (PVT)
    
    LITIGATION                                       )  CLASS ACTION
                                                     )
                                                     )  OAK DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF
    THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:                        )  MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
    ALL ACTIONS                                      )  PLAINTIFFS' SECOND
                                                        CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT;
                                                     )  MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
                                                        AUTHORITIES
                                                         Date: December 10, 1997
                                                        Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                        Place: Courtroom of the Honorable
                                                                   Spencer Williams
    
    
                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
    NOTICE OF MOTION
    
    I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES) Master File No. C 96-20552 SW
  • Plaintiffs Fail To Plead Facts Sufficient To Support Any Cause Of Action Against Non-Speaking
  • Plaintiffs Have Not Established Any Outside Director's
  • None of the Misstatements or Omissions are Pled with the Required Particularity
  • The Oak Defendants Disclosed The Risk Of Decreased Sales Due To Intense Competition, Product
  • ALLEGED NONDISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE MISMANAGEMENT IS NOT ACTIONABLE
  • PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD LOSS CAUSATION AS REQUIRED BY THE PSLRA
  • F. Supp.
  • Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 99,508 (N.D.
  • Duncan v. Pencer, [1995-1996 Transfer Binder] Fed.
  • In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig.,
  • In re Silicon Graphics, Fed.
  • For more than a year, twelve individuals' lives and two corporations' businesses have been
  • Plaintiffs now mistake both format and quantity for the required particularity because their
  • Plaintiffs also fail to plead that the alleged misstatements caused plaintiffs' loss.
  • On May 23, 1996, Oak's stock price dropped $4 after Oak announced it expected a loss for the
  • Almost immediately thereafter, plaintiffs sued Oak and all of its officers and directors,
  • Plaintiffs fail to plead such facts about any of the individual Oak Defendants although the
  • This Court previously rejected plaintiffs' GAAP-related allegations, warning plaintiffs to
  • plaintiffs allege that all Oak Defendants are liable for three types of misstatements and
  • Here, the SAC contains allegations of wrongdoing based on exactly the kinds of vague

  • 12 . REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    OAK
    REFORM ACT
    PLAINTIFFS FAIL
    ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT
    COURT
    MARKET
    SECURITIES
    SAN FRANCISCO
    ALLEGATIONS
    CALIFORNIA
    PLTFS
    OPP
    CIR
    HARRISON LLP
    PARTICULARITY
    SECURITIES FRAUD
    SPEAR STREET TOWER
    CONCLUSORY
    PLEADING STANDARD
    CD-ROM
    MEMORANDUM
    BESPEAKS CAUTION
    LOSS CAUSATION
    TRANSFER BINDER
    CCH
    PRE-REFORM ACT
    PURPORTED MISSTATEMENTS
    RISK DISCLOSURES
    
    
    
    
    
    TOWER C. SNOW, JR. (State Bar No. 58342)
    SARA B. BRODY (State Bar No. 130222)
    STEPHEN M. KNASTER (State Bar No. 146236)
    PATRICK THOMAS MURPHY (State Bar No. 178189)
    RACHAEL E. MENY (State Bar No. 178514)
    BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
    Spear Street Tower, One Market
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: (415) 442-0900
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    Oak Technology, Inc., Richard B. Black,
    Donald R. Bryson, Sidney S. Faulkner,
    Kenji Fujimoto, Ta-Lin Hsu,
    Richard L. King, Wen-Chang Ko,
    Abel S. Lo, Ben T. Taniguchi,
    Timothy Tomlinson, David D. Tsang,
    and Mou Hsin Yang
    
                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES  )  Master File No. C 96-20552 SW (PVT)
    LITIGATION                                          ) [filed Nov. 21, 1997]
                                                        ) Complaint Filed: August 22, 1996
    _____________________________________ ) CLASS ACTION
    THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:                           )
    ALL ACTIONS                                         ) OAK DEFENDANTS' REPLY
    _____________________________________ )) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
                                                             AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
                                                             MOTION TO DISMISS
                                                             PLAINTIFFS' SECOND
                                                             CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
    
                                                             Date: December 10, 1997
                                                             Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                             Place: Courtroom of the
                                                                       Honorable Spencer
                                                                       Williams
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES) Master File No. C 96-20552 SW
  • Each of the Non-Speaking Defendants Should Be Dismissed
  • Plaintiffs Fail to Plead That Any Defendant Is Liable for Alleged GAAP Violations
  • None of the Alleged Misstatements Are Pled with the Required Particularity
  • Sales and Demand for Oak's CD-ROM Controller Chips
  • Both the "Bespeaks Caution" and "Truth-on-the-Market" Doctrines Preclude Liability Because
  • NONDISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE MISMANAGEMENT IS NOT ACTIONABLE AS SECURITIES FRAUD.
  • "LOSS CAUSATION" IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY PLED
  • [1991-1992 Transfer Binder] Fed.
  • Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 96,469 (S.D.N.Y.
  • 770 F.2d 308 (2d Cir.
  • Plaintiffs' Opposition ("Pltfs.
  • Opp.") fails to do what it must -- show that plaintiffs have pled viable securities fraud
  • In a desperate attempt to avoid the dismissal of the Complaint -- this time, with prejudice
  • Plaintiffs ignore the Reform Act's overhaul of Rule 9standards, wrongly asserting that the
  • The Reform Act heightened the pleading standard for securities fraud by requiring that fraud
  • Plaintiffs' effort to shoehorn their allegations into the pre-Reform pleading standards of
  • Plaintiffs' Opposition confirms that their conclusory allegations concerning the Outside
  • Contrary to plaintiffs' flimsy assertions of incomplete risk disclosures, it is difficult to
  • These disclosures were not mere whispers of caution -- they "screamed caution"; accordingly,
  • I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.
  • My business address is Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP, Spear Street Tower, One Market, San
  • OAK DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

  • 13 . DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    PLAINTIFFS
    OAK DEFENDANTS
    OBJECTION
    STATE BAR
    REQUEST
    PUBLIC DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS
    SALES
    DISTRICT COURT
    PRECLUDE
    SUPP
    KRAMER
    STOCK
    SUPPORT
    PLTFS
    EVID
    JAKOBE
    HOLDINGS
    REVIEWING
    DEFS
    TOTAL HOLDINGS
    INDIRECT
    PLAINTIFFS CITE
    LACKS MERIT
    HEARSAY
    SECURITIES
    LAW
    MOTION
    DISMISS
    
    
    
    
    
    TOWER C. SNOW, JR. (State Bar No. 58342)
    SARA B. BRODY (State Bar No. 130222)
    STEPHEN M. KNASTER (State Bar No. 146236)
    PATRICK THOMAS MURPHY (State Bar No. 178189)
    RACHAEL E. MENY (State Bar No. 178514)
    BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
    Spear Street Tower, One Market
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: (415) 442-0900
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    Oak Technology, Inc., Richard B. Black,
    Donald R. Bryson, Sidney S. Faulkner,
    Kenji Fujimoto, Ta-Lin Hsu, Richard L. King,
    Wen-Chang Ko, Abel S. Lo, Ben T. Taniguchi,
    Timothy Tomlinson, David D. Tsang,
    and Mou Hsin Yang
    
                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES  )  Master File No. C 96-20552 SW (PVT)
    LITIGATION                                           ) [filed Nov. 21, 1997]
    _____________________________________ )) CLASS ACTION
    THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:                            )
    ALL ACTIONS                                          ) OAK DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN
    _____________________________________ ) SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR
                                                              JUDICIAL NOTICE
    
                                                              Date: December 10, 1997
                                                              Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                              Place: Courtroom of the
                                                                         Honorable Spencer Williams
    
    Plaintiffs object to the Oak Defendants' request that this Court take judicial notice of the
    Forms 3 and 4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Pltfs. Obj. at
    1. Plaintiffs' objection runs counter to federal courts' repeated decisions that allow a court
    to take judicial notice of documents filed with the SEC, including Forms 3 and 4.
    Moreover, the objection should be overruled because neither Fed. R. of Evid. 201 nor
    801(c) preclude this Court from taking judicial notice of SEC filings.
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • (State Bar No. 58342)
  • Plaintiffs object to the Oak Defendants' request that this Court take judicial notice of the
  • Plaintiffs' objection runs counter to federal courts' repeated decisions that allow a court
  • R. of Evid.
  • The Oak Defendants' request for judicial notice of the Forms 3 and 4 finds support in the
  • Sec. Litig., 900 F. Supp.
  • (a court can take judicial notice of "public disclosure documents required by law to be
  • Jakobe, 943 F. Supp.
  • the Oak Defendants' Forms 3 and 4 are integral to reviewing plaintiffs' insider trading
  • Plaintiffs themselves cite repeatedly to the stock sales of defendants, including specific
  • 201 to preclude a district court from considering when faced with a motion to dismiss...
  • Kramer, 937 F.2d at 774.
  • The Forms 3 and 4 demonstrate the Complaint's failure to distinguish between each defendant's
  • 801 because they are "hearsay" also lacks merit.
  • See Pltfs.
  • This prevents plaintiffs from using selective quotations of information from the documents
  • See Defs.
  • Nor do plaintiffs cite any cases in the Ninth Circuit in support of their objections.

  • 14 . ERRATA TO MEMO FILED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SAN FRANCISCO
    BROBECK
    PHLEGER
    HARRISON LLP
    OAK
    BUSINESS
    OAK DEFENDANTS
    SPEAR STREET TOWER
    STATE BAR
    MEMORANDUM
    AUTHORITIES
    DECLARE
    PRACTICE
    MARKET
    RICHARD
    ERRATA
    SUPPORT
    MOTION
    DISMISS PLAINTIFFS
    CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
    THEREOF
    CORRESPONDENCE
    PICKETT
    CITY
    COUNTY
    AGE
    PARTY
    PLACING
    DELIVERY
    
    
    
    
    
    TOWER C. SNOW, JR. (State Bar No. 58342)
    SARA B. BRODY (State Bar No. 130222)
    STEPHEN M. KNASTER (State Bar No. 146236)
    PATRICK THOMAS MURPHY (State Bar No. 178189)
    RACHAEL E. MENY (State Bar No. 178514)
    BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
    Spear Street Tower, One Market
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: (415) 442-0900
     Attorneys for Defendants
    Oak Technology, Inc., Richard B. Black,
    Donald R. Bryson, Sidney S. Faulkner,
    Kenji Fujimoto, Ta-Lin Hsu, Richard L. King,
    Wen-Chang Ko, Abel S. Lo, Ben T. Taniguchi,
    Timothy Tomlinson, David D. Tsang,
    and Mou Hsin Yang
    
    
                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES )  Master File No. C 96-20552 SW (PVT)
    LITIGATION                                       )  [filed Oct. 10, 1997]
                                                     )
    THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:                        )  CLASS ACTION
    ALL ACTIONS                                      ) )  ERRATA TO THE OAK
                                                     )  DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF
                                                           POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND
                                                           APPENDIX FILED IN SUPPORT OF
                                                           THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS
                                                           PLAINTIFFS' SECOND
                                                           CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
    
                                                           Date: December 10, 1997
                                                           Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                           Place: Courtroom of the Honorable
                                                                      Spencer Williams
    
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • (State Bar No. 58342)
  • IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES) Master File No. C 96-20552 SW
  • The case Cooper v. Pickett was cited incorrectly as Cooper v. Pickett,
  • Memorandum of Points and Authorities
  • I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.
  • I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action.
  • My business address is Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP, Spear Street Tower, One Market, San
  • ERRATA TO THE OAK DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND APPENDIX FILED IN
  • on the partyin this action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelopeaddressed as
  • I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
  • I placed the sealed envelopefor collection and delivery to the Federal Express offices by
  • I am readily familiar with Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP's practice for collecting and

  • 15 . CONSOLIDATED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    MISLEADING
    PLAINTIFF
    PRICE
    MARKET
    CHIP
    SHARES
    TRADING
    EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
    VENTURE CAPITAL DEFENDANTS
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    PARTICIPANT
    SCHEME
    BUSINESS
    CLASS PERIOD
    TECHNOLOGY
    SECURITIES
    CD-ROM CONTROLLER
    EXCHANGE ACT
    MATERIALLY FALSE
    BUSINESS PROSPECTS
    MPEG
    ALLEGATIONS
    REPRESENTATIONS
    CALIFORNIA
    ILLEGAL SCHEME
    VIOLATIONS
    BUSINESS UNIT
    SIGNIFICANT TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
    
    
    
    
    
    [NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF COUNSEL
    APPEAR ON SIGNATURE PAGE]
    
                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                      NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES Master File No.
    LITIGATION                                   C 96-20552 SW (PVT)
    ___________________________________  [filed Sep. 4, 1997]
    
    THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:                    CLASS ACTION
    ALL ACTIONS
                                                 CONSOLIDATED SECOND
                                                 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
                                                 VIOLATIONS OF THE
                                                 SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
                                                 OF 1934
     ___________________________________  JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
    
    
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
    FORMAT
    
    INTRODUCTION
    
    JURISDICTION AND VENUE
    
    INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
    
    THE PARTIES
    
          PLAINTIFFS
    
          DEFENDANTS
    
                 THE OFFICER DEFENDANTS
                 THE VENTURE CAPITAL DEFENDANTS
    
    DEFENDANTS' PARTICIPATION IN AN ILLEGAL SCHEME
    
    DEFENDANTS' FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS TO ARTIFICIALLY
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES Master File No.
  • THE OFFICER DEFENDANTS
  • THE VENTURE CAPITAL DEFENDANTS
  • Violations of Section 10of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Against All Defendants
  • Violations of Section 20of The Exchange Act Against the Individual Defendants
  • BASIS OF ALLEGATIONS
  • To the extent that the claim is premised on a misleading statement, each misleading statement
  • To the extent that a claim is based on illegal insider trading, the trader is identified, the
  • The class representatives named as plaintiffs herein bought a total of 242,350 shares of Oak
  • As a result of such violations, defendants artificially inflated the market price of Oak
  • In order to ensure the highest possible price for their sales of Oak common stock, the
  • defendants falsely represented that there was "exceptional demand" for the Company's CD-ROM
  • These positive representations and forecasts were all materially false and misleading when
  • This net loss included inventory related write downs of $24 million, including writedowns of
  • At all relevant times, Oak was a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
  • The compression/imaging business unit, also known as MPEG, uses digital
  • the Executive Committee met each week day morning at 9:00 a.m. with executives from one of
  • As a person selling Oak common stock, Tsang was a direct participant in the scheme to defraud
  • Plaintiffs' claims, in part, are based upon defendants making materially false and misleading
  • Oak's graphic chip, the OTI-64107, had significant technical problems resulting in high

  • 16 . ORDER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PETITIONERS
    LAW
    REAL PARTIES
    SECURITIES
    CLASS ACTION
    DIAMOND
    LITIGATION
    CALIFORNIA
    OAK
    IMP
    ALLEGE
    STOCK
    DISTRICT
    DEFENDANTS
    SECURITIES FRAUD
    PRICE
    SUPERIOR COURT
    RESPONDENT
    DISCRETION
    FACTS
    DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS
    PARTY
    CIVIL CODE
    DISCOVERY
    HEREAFTER
    PURCHASE
    MISLEADING
    MOTIONS
    PLAINTIFFS
    
    
    
    
                                                 NOT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
                                                 [filed Aug. 14, 1997]
    
    
               IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    
                              SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    
    
    OAK TECHNOLOGY, et al.,
                                                      H016141
                    Petitioners,
                                                      (Santa Clara County
             vs.                                          Super.Ct.No. CV758510)
    
    THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY,
    
                    Respondent;
    
    HOCHMAN, et al.,
    
                    Real parties in interest.
    ________________________________________/
    
    DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS, INC., et al., H016186
                    Petitioners,
                                                      (Santa Clara County
             vs.                                          Super.Ct.No. CV758927)
    
    THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY,
    
                    Respondent;
    
    JOANNE PASS, etc.,
    
                    Real party in interest.
    ________________________________________/
    
    IMP, INC., et al.,
                                                      H016281
                    Petitioners,
                                                      (Santa Clara County
             vs.                                          Super.Ct.No. CV760793)
    
    THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY,
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
  • SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
  • Petitioners,
  • THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY,
  • Respondent;
  • Real parties in interest.
  • DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS, INC., et al., H016186
  • Real party in interest.
  • Defendants in three civil actions for securities fraud seek
  • OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC.
  • Petitioners Oak Technology, Inc. (hereafter, Oak), David D.
  • The same law firm represents real parties in interest in each case.
  • The action, however, has not yet been certified to proceed as a class action.
  • in the Diamond and Imp cases neither the state nor the federal class actions have been
  • Oak common stock between July 27, 1995, and May 22, 1996.
  • Real parties in interest essentially allege that petitioners
  • the true picture materialized and the stock price deflated.
  • engage in the purchase or sale of securities),
  • alleging the same underlying facts was filed in the United States
  • knowing or reckless false or misleading material statements re
  • Civil Code sections 1709 and 1710.
  • order to maintain duplicative litigation.
  • Petitioners made separate motions below and advanced similar
  • Securities fraud plaintiffs and their attorneys have seized upon
  • securities fraud and to provide for a discovery stay while the
  • the California court has the discretion but

  • 17 . CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE 96-CV-20720

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    APPOINTMENT
    COUNSEL
    MOTION
    ENTRY
    CONSOLIDATE
    ZAND
    JUDGE SPENCER
    JUDGE SPENCER WILLIAMS
    PLAINTIFF KAMBIZ
    SENIOR JUDGE SPENCER
    SCU
    DECLARATION
    MANAGEMENT
    BARBARA CORNEILLE
    RELATING
    DOCKET
    DISTRICT
    COURT
    NOTICE SET
    OAK
    WITHDRAWING
    RICHARD
    MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
    AUTHORITIES
    EDIT
    EPSTEIN
    CARLO BRUNO
    PLAINTIFF MICHAEL RASKIN
    RECEIVED PROPOSED ORDER
    
    
    
    
    
    Docket as of June 4, 1997
    
    Proceedings include all events.
    CONSOL
    5:96cv20720       Zand, et al v. Hsu, et al
    
                                                                       CONSOL
                               U.S. District Court
    U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
    
                      CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 96-CV-20720
    
    Zand, et al v. Hsu, et al                                          Filed:
    09/04/96
    Assigned to: Senior Judge Spencer Williams          Jury demand: Plaintiff
    Demand: $0,000                                      Nature of Suit: 850
    Lead Docket: 96-CV-20552                            Jurisdiction: Federal
    Question
    Dkt# in other court: None
    
    Cause: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act
    [Party and Counsel List]
    
    
    9/4/96       1       COMPLAINT      Summons(es) issued; Fee status pd entered
    on
                         9/4/96 in the amount of $ 120.00 ( Receipt No.
    501442);
                         jury demand       [5:96-cv-20720] (cm) [Entry date
    09/05/96]
                         [5:96cv20720]
    
    9/4/96       2       NOTICE by Plaintiff of related case(s) 96-20552 SW,
                         96-20685 SW [5:96-cv-20720] (cm) [Entry date 09/05/96]
                         [5:96cv20720]
    
    9/4/96       3       ORDER RE COURT PROCEDURE and SCHEDULE by Mag. Judge
    Edward
                         A. Infante : Proof of service to be filed by 10/21/96 ;
                         counsels' case management statement to be filed by
    12/27/96
                         ; initial case management conference will be held 1:30
                         1/6/97 . (cc: all counsel) (cm) [Entry date 09/05/96]
                         [5:96cv20720]
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Docket as of June 4,
  • U.S. District Court
  • U.S. District for the Northern District of California
  • Cause: 15:78mSecurities Exchange Act [Party and Counsel List]
  • 9/4/96 2 NOTICE by Plaintiff of related case96-20552 SW,
  • 96-20685 SW [Entry date 09/05/96]
  • initial case management conference will be held 1:30
  • AUTHORITIES before Senior Judge Spencer Williams by
  • Plaintiff Kambiz K. Zand in 5:96-cv-20720, for appointment
  • Notice set for 11/13/96 at 10:00 [5:96-cv-20552,
  • 5:96-cv-20685, 5:96-cv-20720, 5:96-cv-20729] (scu)
  • [Edit date 09/13/96]
  • 9/10/96 7 DECLARATION by Kimberly C. Epstein on behalf of Plaintiff
  • Carlo Bruno in 5:96-cv-20552, Plaintiff Michael Raskin in
  • 5:96-cv-20552, Plaintiff Michael Raskin in 5:96-cv-20685,
  • Barbara Corneille in 5:96-cv-20729) re: declaration
  • re: motion for appointment of lead
  • Plaintiff Kambiz K. Zand in 5:96-cv-20720, to consolidate
  • 9/12/96 5 ORDER by Senior Judge Spencer Williams relating cases;
  • 9/20/96 13 NOTICE by Oak dfts of related case and pendency of other
  • 5:96-cv-20685, 5:96-cv-20720, 5:96-cv-20729, withdrawing
  • 5:96-cv-20720, Richard L. King in 5:96-cv-20720,

  • 18 . SUPP APPENDIX IN SUPPORT MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    TRANSFER BINDER
    CCH
    TOWER
    RICHARD
    DISTRICT
    SIEGEL
    LYONS
    FAULKNER
    KENJI FUJIMOTO
    TA-LIN HSU
    KING
    WEN-CHANG
    ABEL
    TANIGUCHI
    TIMOTHY TOMLINSON
    DAVID
    TSANG
    MOU HSIN YANG
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    STATES DISTRICT COURT
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    CALIFORNIA
    CLASS ACTION
    MOTION
    DISMISS
    SOFTWARE TOOLWORKS
    LITIG
    STRASSMAN
    FRESH CHOICE
    
    
    
    TOWER C. SNOW, JR. (State Bar No. 58342)
    SARA B. BRODY (State Bar No. 130222)
    STEPHEN M. KNASTER (State Bar No. 146236)
    PATRICK THOMAS MURPHY (State Bar No. 178189)
    RACHAEL E. MENY (State Bar No. 178514)
    BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
    Spear Street Tower, One Market
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: (415) 442-0900
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    Oak Technology, Inc., Richard B. Black,
    Donald R. Bryson, Sidney S. Faulkner,
    Kenji Fujimoto, Ta-Lin Hsu, Richard L. King,
    Wen-Chang Ko, Abel S. Lo, Ben T. Taniguchi,
    Timothy Tomlinson, David D. Tsang,
    and Mou Hsin Yang
    
                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY                     )   Master File No. C 96-20552 SW (PVT)
    SECURITIES LITIGATION                     )
    ______________________________ ) CLASS ACTION
                                              )
    THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:  ) SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX IN
    ALL ACTIONS                               ) SUPPORT OF OAK DEFENDANTS'
    ______________________________ ) MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS''
                                                   CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
    
                                                   Date: May 21, 1997
                                                   Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                   Place: Courtroom of the
                                                   Honorable Spencer Williams
    
                                 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
    Cases:
    
    In re Software Toolworks, Inc. Sec. Litig., [1991-1992 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep.
    (CCH) ¶ 96,425, 1991 WL 319033 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 1991)
    
    Siegel v. Lyons, [1996-1997 Transfer Binder] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 99,227, 1996
    WL 438793 (N.D. Cal. April 26, 1996)
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • (State Bar No. 58342)
  • Spear Street Tower, One Market
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • CLASS ACTION
  • MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS''
  • In re Software Toolworks, Inc.
  • Sec. Litig., Fed.
  • Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 96,425, 1991 WL 319033 (N.D.
  • Siegel v. Lyons, [1996-1997 Transfer Binder] Fed.
  • Strassman v. Fresh Choice, Inc., 1995 WL 743728 (N.D.

  • 19 . REPLY IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    OAK DEFENDANTS
    PLAINTIFFS
    OBJECTION
    STATE BAR
    REQUEST
    DISTRICT COURT
    EVID
    PRECLUDE
    PUBLIC DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS
    SUPP
    KRAMER
    PLTFS
    JAKOBE
    HOLDINGS
    REVIEWING
    STOCK
    SALES
    DEFS
    ALLEGATIONS
    TOTAL HOLDINGS
    INDIRECT
    LACKS MERIT
    HEARSAY
    SUPPORT
    LAW
    MOTION
    DISMISS
    CIR
    
    
    
    TOWER C. SNOW, JR. (State Bar No. 58342)
    SARA B. BRODY (State Bar No. 130222)
    STEPHEN M. KNASTER (State Bar No. 146236)
    PATRICK THOMAS MURPHY (State Bar No. 178189)
    RACHAEL E. MENY (State Bar No. 178514)
    BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
    Spear Street Tower, One Market
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: (415) 442-0900
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    Oak Technology, Inc., Richard B. Black,
    Donald R. Bryson, Sidney S. Faulkner,
    Kenji Fujimoto, Ta-Lin Hsu, Richard L. King,
    Wen-Chang Ko, Abel S. Lo, Ben T. Taniguchi,
    Timothy Tomlinson, David D. Tsang,
    and Mou Hsin Yang
    
                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY                      )   Master File No. C 96-20552 SW (PVT)
    SECURITIES LITIGATION                     )
    ______________________________ ) CLASS ACTION
                                              )
    THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:  ) OAK DEFENDANTS' REPLY IN
    ALL ACTIONS                               ) SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR
    ______________________________ ) JUDICIAL NOTICE
                                                   Date: May 21, 1997
                                                   Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                   Place: Courtroom of the
                                                   Honorable Spencer Williams
    
    Plaintiffs object to the Oak Defendants' request that this Court take judicial notice of the
    Forms 3 and 4 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Pltfs. Obj. at
    1. Plaintiffs' objection runs counter to federal courts' repeated decisions that allow a court
    to take judicial notice of documents filed with the SEC, including Forms 3 and 4.
    Moreover, the objection should be overruled because neither Fed. R. of Evid. 201 nor
    801(c) preclude this Court from taking judicial notice of SEC filings.
    
    The Oak Defendants' request for judicial notice of Forms 3 and 4 finds support in the
    numerous federal decisions that take judicial notice of "public disclosure documents
    required by law to be and which actually have been filed with the SEC." In re Gupta
    Corp. Sec. Litig., 900 F. Supp. 1217, 1228 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Kramer v. Time-Warner,
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • (State Bar No. 58342)
  • Plaintiffs object to the Oak Defendants' request that this Court take judicial notice of the
  • Plaintiffs' objection runs counter to federal courts' repeated decisions that allow a court
  • R. of Evid.
  • The Oak Defendants' request for judicial notice of Forms 3 and 4 finds support in the
  • Sec. Litig., 900 F. Supp.
  • Jakobe, 943 F. Supp.
  • the Oak Defendants' Forms 3 and 4 are integral to reviewing plaintiffs' insider trading
  • 201 to preclude a district court from considering when faced with a motion to dismiss...
  • Kramer, 937 F.2d at 774.
  • The Forms 3 and 4 attached to the Oak Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice demonstrate
  • The Forms 3 and 4 demonstrate the Complaint's failure to distinguish between each defendant's
  • See Defs.
  • 801 because they are "hearsay" also lacks merit.
  • See Pltfs.
  • Software Spectrum, Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1018 (5th Cir.
  • This prevents plaintiffs from using selective quotations of information from the documents

  • 20 . PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    JUDICIAL NOTICE
    REQUEST
    PLAINTIFFS
    DISTRICT COURT
    AMICUS
    FACTS
    SUPPORT
    OPPOSITION
    DEFENDANTS
    MOTIONS
    DISMISS
    PVT
    SAN FRANCISCO
    COUNSEL
    CALIFORNIA
    SECURITIES
    PUBLIC RECORD
    SUPP
    BENNETT
    LLP
    COTCHETT
    PITRE
    UNITED STATES
    EXCHANGE
    CURIAE
    PURSUANT
    CIRCUIT
    MATTER
    PLEADINGS
    
    
    
    
    GOLD BENNETT & CERA LLP
    Paul F. Bennett (63318)
    George S. Trevor (127875)
    Rina Pedroza (181889)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2300
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: (415) 777-2230
    
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES
    & LERACH LLP
    Alan Schulman (128661)
    Mark Solomon (151949)
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Telephone: (619) 231-1058
    
    COTCHETT & PITRE
    Joseph W. Cotchett (36324)
    Frank M. Pitre (100077)
    Steven C. Keller (94102)
    San Francisco Airport Office Center
    840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
    Burlingame, CA 94010
    Telephone: (415) 697-6000
    
    Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and
    All Others Similarly Situated
    
    [Additional Counsel Appear on
    Signature Page]
    
    
                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                        NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY           )    Master File No. C 96-20552 SW (PVT)
    SECURITIES LITIGATION          )) CLASS ACTION
    ___________________________ )) PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
    THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:      )    NOTICE OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
    ALL ACTIONS                    )    THEIR OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'
                                   )    MOTIONS TO DISMISS
    ___________________________ )
                                        Date:     May 21, 1997
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • GOLD BENNETT & CERA LLP
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP
  • COTCHETT & PITRE
  • San Francisco Airport Office Center
  • Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and All Others Similarly Situated
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:) NOTICE OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
  • this Court take judicial notice of the Securities and Exchange
  • Commission's amicus curiae brief filed in In re Silicon Graphics,
  • Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. C-96-0343, attached
  • Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.
  • request is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201 and this
  • California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. City of West
  • Sacramento, 905 F. Supp.
  • Court in Ninth Circuit took judicial notice of United States'
  • district court matter); Happy Inv.
  • matter of public record and its contents are subject to scrutiny
  • taking judicial notice of public records outside the pleadings).
  • PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OPPOSITION TO

  • 21 . OBJECTION TO THE DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    JUDICIAL NOTICE
    OAK DEFENDANTS
    PLAINTIFFS
    REQUEST
    HEARSAY
    OBJECTION
    MOTION
    FEDERAL RULE
    EVIDENCE
    DISMISS
    FACTS
    INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY
    TRUTH
    DECLARANTS
    PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
    SAN FRANCISCO
    COURT
    INDISPUTABILITY
    CIR
    DISPUTE
    SALES
    COTCHETT
    PITRE
    COUNSEL
    DISTRICT
    SUPPORT
    CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
    HENNESSY
    STOCK
    
    
    
    GOLD BENNETT & CERA LLP
    Paul F. Bennett (63318)
    George S. Trevor (127875)
    Rina Pedroza (181889)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2300
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: (415) 777-2230
    
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES
    & LERACH LLP
    Alan Schulman (128661)
    Mark Solomon (151949)
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Telephone: (619) 231-1058
    
    COTCHETT & PITRE
    Joseph W. Cotchett (36324)
    Frank M. Pitre (100077)
    Steven C. Keller (94102)
    San Francisco Airport Office Center
    840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
    Burlingame, CA 94010
    Telephone: (415) 697-6000
    
    Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and
    All Others Similarly Situated
    
    [Additional Counsel Appear on
    Signature Page]
    
    
                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                        NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY           )    Master File No. C 96-20552 SW (PVT)
    SECURITIES LITIGATION          )) CLASS ACTION
    ___________________________ )) Date: May 21, 1997
    THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:      )    Time:     10:00 a.m.
    ALL ACTIONS                    )    Place:    Courtroom of The Honorable
                                   )              Spencer Williams
    ___________________________ )
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • COTCHETT & PITRE
  • San Francisco Airport Office Center
  • Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and All Others Similarly Situated
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
  • PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION TO THE OAK DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FACTS IN SUPPORT
  • Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint."
  • on the basis that such Forms lack the "indisputability" required
  • constitute "inadmissible hearsay" under Federal Rule of Evidence
  • The contents of the Forms relating to defendants' purported sales or lack thereof - are the
  • subject of substantial dispute in this case.
  • Hennessy, 69 F.3d at 1354 (in determining the number of employees
  • to prove the truth of the matter asserted - that the individual
  • defendants "sold" or did not sell certain Oak stock,
  • Software Spectrum, Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1018 (5th Cir.
  • the Forms fail to qualify as public documents under
  • Declarants to defendant Faulkner.

  • 22 . MOTION TO DISMISS CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    OAK
    FACTS
    SECURITIES
    OAK TECHNOLOGY
    MOTION
    PARTICULARITY
    MARKET
    OMISSIONS
    ALLEGATIONS
    SUPP
    DISMISS
    COURT
    STANDARD
    CIR
    PLAINTIFFS FAIL
    PSLRA
    INSIDER TRADING
    SECURITIES FRAUD
    MISLEADING
    CCH
    GAAP
    FRAUDULENT
    SILICON GRAPHICS
    COMPETITION
    MISREPRESENTATIONS
    CLASS PERIOD
    CORPORATE MISMANAGEMENT
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    
    
    
    TOWER C. SNOW, JR. (State Bar No. 58342)
    SARA B. BRODY (State Bar No. 130222)
    STEPHEN M. KNASTER (State Bar No. 146236)
    PATRICK THOMAS MURPHY (State Bar No. 178189)
    RACHAEL E. MENY (State Bar No. 178514)
    BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
    Spear Street Tower, One Market
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: (415) 442-0900
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    Oak Technology, Inc., Richard B. Black,
    Donald R. Bryson, Sidney S. Faulkner,
    Kenji Fujimoto, Ta-Lin Hsu, Richard L. King,
    Wen-Chang Ko, Abel S. Lo, Ben T. Taniguchi,
    Timothy Tomlinson, David D. Tsang,
    and Mou Hsin Yang
    
    
                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                         NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES) Master File No. C 96-20552 SW (PVT)
    LITIGATION                         )
    _______________________________) CLASS ACTION
                                       )
    THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:          ) OAK DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF
    ALL ACTIONS                        ) MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
    _______________________________) PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED
                                            COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
                                            POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
    
                                            Date: May 21, 1997
                                            Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                            Place: Courtroom of the Honorable
                                                     Spencer Williams
    
    
    
    
    
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                                                         Page
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Spear Street Tower, One Market
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES) Master File No. C 96-20552 SW
  • THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS
  • PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT PLED ANY ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS
  • OR OMISSIONS WITH THE PARTICULARITY REQUIRED BY THE
  • Plaintiffs Fail to Plead Facts Sufficient to Support Any Cause of Action Against Oak
  • Liable for Alleged Violations of GAAP
  • Plaintiffs' Allegations Regarding Negative Internal Forecasts Do Not Satisfy the Particularity
  • Misleading Forward-Looking Statements as Required by the PSLRA
  • Scienter Even Under a Recklessness Standard
  • Personal Sales During the Class Period
  • Plaintiffs' "Insider Trading" Allegations
  • Sales Due to Intense Competition and New Product
  • ALLEGED NONDISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE MISMANAGEMENT IS
  • F. Supp.
  • 1993 (CCH) (S.D.
  • F.3d 208 (7th Cir.
  • In re Silicon Graphics Sec. Litig.,
  • respect to each allegedly fraudulent act or omission;
  • against fourteen corporate and individual defendants pursuant to
  • securities fraud cases "more rigorous").4/ If these requirements

  • 23 . MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    OAK DEFENDANTS
    COURT
    OMISSIONS
    MARKET
    SUPPORT
    SAN FRANCISCO
    CALIFORNIA
    FACTS
    PLEAD
    ALLEGATIONS
    COMPLAINT
    MISREPRESENTATIONS
    PARTICULARITY
    SUPP
    LITIG
    HARRISON LLP
    PLAINTIFFS FAIL
    REFORM ACT
    PSLRA
    AUTHORITIES
    CD-ROM SALES
    SPEAR STREET TOWER
    ENTANGLEMENT
    TECHNOLOGY
    UNITED STATES
    BESPEAKS CAUTION
    LOSS CAUSATION
    SECURITIES FRAUD
    PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE
    
    
    
    TOWER C. SNOW, JR. (State Bar No. 58342)
    SARA B. BRODY (State Bar No. 130222)
    STEPHEN M. KNASTER (State Bar No. 146236)
    PATRICK THOMAS MURPHY (State Bar No. 178189)
    RACHAEL E. MENY (State Bar No. 178514)
    BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
    Spear Street Tower, One Market
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    Telephone: (415) 442-0900
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    Oak Technology, Inc., Richard B. Black,
    Donald R. Bryson, Sidney S. Faulkner,
    Kenji Fujimoto, Ta-Lin Hsu, Richard L. King,
    Wen-Chang Ko, Abel S. Lo, Ben T. Taniguchi,
    Timothy Tomlinson, David D. Tsang,
    and Mou Hsin Yang
    
                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY                     )   Master File No. C 96-20552 SW (PVT)
    SECURITIES LITIGATION                     )
    ______________________________ ) CLASS ACTION
                                              )
    THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:  ) OAK DEFENDANTS' REPLY
    ALL ACTIONS                               ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
    ______________________________ ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
                                                   MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS'
                                                   CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
    
                                                   Date: May 21, 1997
                                                   ~ Time: 10:00 a.m.
                                                   Place: Courtroom of the
                                                   Honorable Spencer Williams
    
                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
    I. INTRODUCTION
    
    II. THE NINE OAK DEFENDANTS WHO "MADE NO AFFIRMATIVE
    MISREPRESENTATIONS OR OMISSIONS" MUST BE DISMISSED
    
    III. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT PLED ANY ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS OR
    OMISSIONS WITH THE PARTICULARITY REQUIRED BY THE PSLRA AND
    RULE 9(b)
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • THE NINE OAK DEFENDANTS WHO "MADE NO AFFIRMATIVE MISREPRESENTATIONS OR OMISSIONS" MUST BE
  • The Complaint Fails to Plead Facts Showing Why Each Alleged False or Misleading Statement Was
  • Plaintiffs Fail to Plead That Any Defendant Is Liable for GAAP-Related Violations
  • Because Plaintiffs Fail to Plead "Entanglement" the Oak Defendants May Not Be Held Liable for
  • Both the "Bespeaks Caution" and "Truth-on-the-Market" Doctrines Preclude Liability Because
  • THE VAGUE EXPRESSIONS OF OPTIMISM ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT ARE NOT ACTIONABLE BECAUSE NO
  • PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PLEAD "LOSS CAUSATION" AS REQUIRED UNDER THE REFORM ACT
  • TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
  • Bennett v. United States Trust Company of New York,
  • 922 F. Supp.
  • Sec. Litig., 837 F. Supp.
  • In re Valence Technology Sec. Litig.,
  • Despite its length, the Complaint is notably light on the particularized facts required to
  • As explained in detail below and in Defendants' Opening Brief, the Complaint should be nt was misleading.
  • The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA" or "Reform Act") made the "pleading
  • Plaintiffs, however, plead no concrete facts showing that a purported misstatement related to
  • Plaintiffs allege simply a oneway flow of information from Oak to the analysts, and then from
  • This reliance is misplaced because even if recklessness remains the standard for scienter14/,
  • I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.
  • My business address is Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP, Spear Street Tower, One Market, San

  • 24 . MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    OAK
    PLAINTIFFS
    COMPLAINT
    MOTION
    FACTS
    DISMISS PLAINTIFFS
    COURT
    MEMORANDUM
    OPPOSITION
    CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
    STANDARD
    SALES
    CIR
    STOCK
    SCIEN