LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

QUANTUM CORPORATION Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: QC111083, CourtName: CLASS ACTION II, State: CA California, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>QC111083, Quantum, Complaint, Drives, Stock, Facts, Bigfoot Drives, California, Reform Act, Gunty, Allegations, Superior Court, District Court, Securities, Class Period, Amended Complaint, Storage, Misleading, Class Action, Disk Drives, Cir, Insider, Standard, Motion, Pleading, Plead, Fraud, Howard Gunty, Demand, Scienter, San Francisco, Fails, Oem, Allege, Representations, Arrieta, Particularity, Market, Shares, Fernandez, Demurrer, Quantum Corporation, Sell, Amended Complaint Fails , ContentID: 120246862

Case Documents
1   PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT OPENING BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116697
40 pages
PDF
2   ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116692
12 pages
PDF
3   OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116690
24 pages
PDF
4   LITIGANTS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116682
2 pages
PDF
5   DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES ANSWERING BRIEF
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116681
38 pages
PDF
6   DECLARATION OF JOHN K GRANT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116680
3 pages
PDF
7   COMPLAINT 1
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116678
55 pages
PDF
8 1998-07-08 CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE 96-CV-20711
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116677
10 pages
PDF
9 1998-04-10 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116689
2 pages
PDF
10 1998-04-06 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116695
16 pages
PDF
11 1998-03-31 STATEMENT OF DECISION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116700
2 pages
PDF
12 1998-01-21 REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116699
20 pages
PDF
13 1997-12-17 OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116691
25 pages
PDF
14 1997-10-30 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CREATION OF ETHICAL WALL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116694
2 pages
PDF
15 1997-10-24 MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116688
19 pages
PDF
16 1997-09-12 COMPLAINT 2
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116679
39 pages
PDF
17 1997-08-14 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116693
21 pages
PDF
18 1997-07-08 PETITION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116696
13 pages
PDF
19 1997-05-28 MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116687
16 pages
PDF
20 1997-03-20 AMENDED COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116676
68 pages
PDF
21 1997-01-21 REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116698
33 pages
PDF
22 1997-01-21 MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DETERMINATION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116686
23 pages
PDF
23 1997-01-21 MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR DETERMINATION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116684
31 pages
PDF
24 1996-12-12 MEMO IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116685
35 pages
PDF
25 1996-12-12 MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 116683
40 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 25 documents , 589 pages
Price: $ 139.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT OPENING BRIEF

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISTRICT COURT
FACTS
MISLEADING
ALLEGATIONS
INSIDER
COMPLAINT
REPRESENTATIONS
BIGFOOT DRIVES
ALLEGE
QUANTUM
PLAINTIFF
CIR
SHARES
REASONS
INSIDER TRADING
UNITED STATES
OEM
SAN FRANCISCO
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENTIARY FACTS
CLASS PERIOD
PROFIT SHARING PLAN
DISCLOSURES
PROJECTIONS
CONTEMPORANEOUS FACTS
HOWARD GUNTY
OPTIMISTIC STATEMENTS
MANUFACTURERS
TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
ASSERTIONS



                                              No. 98-15935

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                      FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

                                          ____________________
                 HOWARD GUNTY, INC. PROFIT SHARING PLAN, On Behalf
                             of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellant

                                                    vs.

                                  QUANTUM CORPORATION, et al.,

                                         Defendants-Appellees.
                                        ____________________

                            Appeal from the United States District Court
                                  for the Northern District of California
                                       No. C-96-20711-SW(EAI)
                                    The Honorable Spencer Williams

                        PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD                                 STULL STULL & BRODY
  HYNES & LERACH LLP                                  JULES BRODY
WILLIAM S. LERACH                                     6 East 45th Street
LEONARD B. SIMON                                      4th Floor
ERIC A. ISAACSON                                      New York, NY 10017
JOSEPH D. DALEY                                       Telephone: 212/687-7230
600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101                                   SCHIFFRIN CRAIG &
Telephone: 619/231-1058                                 BARROWAY, LLP
     - and -                                          RICHARD S. SCHIFFRIN
REED R. KATHREIN                                      Three Bala Plaza East
JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE                                   Suite 400
JOHN K. GRANT                                         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor                         Telephone: 610/667-7706
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: 415/288-4545
                                     Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant


SNIPPETS:
  • Howard Gunty, Inc. has no parent companies, subsidiaries or affiliates that have issued
  • The Complaint Adequately Alleges Reasons Why Defendants' Representations Were False And
  • The Complaint Alleges Specific Contemporaneous Facts That Caused
  • Defendants' Statements To Be False And Misleading
  • The District Court Erred By Rejecting Or Ignoring Many Of Plaintiff's Allegations
  • Allegations And By Crediting Defendants' Assertions Instead
  • 928 F.2d 1108 (11th Cir.
  • Gottreich v. San Francisco Inv.
  • United States v. Smith, Fed.
  • On April 30, 1998, the district court entered a final judgment, ER62, and plaintiff filed a
  • This is a securities-fraud class action against Quantum Corporation and seven top executive
  • Defendants' false statements drove Quantum stock to $26-1/8, allowing seven insiders to
  • Profit Sharing Plan, which had purchased 400 shares on March 11, 1996, filed this action on
  • Judge Williams dismissed the initial complaint with leave to amend, holding that plaintiff
  • Quantum makes mass-storage computer-memory devices -- including hard-disk drives and tape
  • Quantum's leading OEM customers during the Class Period included Apple Computer, Compaq, and
  • Before Quantum commenced volume production, however, its internal corporate plan required it
  • Bigfoot drives suffered failure rates exceeding 25% that prevented DVT validation, and made
  • Quantum's plan was that when OEM customers subsequently placed large orders, Quantum would
  • Because of this and other problems -- including weak European demand for Quantum products,
  • These representations were, of course, materially false and misleading.
  • Quantum was in trouble, and as defendants' misrepresentations pushed Quantum stock to its
  • Despite the remarkably short time between defendants' optimistic statements in May and early
  • As set forth below, plaintiff did just this, by alleging specific contemporaneous facts that

  • 2 . ORDER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COURT
    GUNTY
    LEAD PLAINTIFF
    DEFENDANTS
    APPOINTMENT
    ADEQUATE
    MOTION
    MEMBERS
    ACT
    PRESUMPTION
    MOVING
    PAPERS
    QUANTUM
    STANDING
    REPRESENTING
    PARTY
    REFORM ACT
    STOCK
    COMPLAINT
    CERTIFICATION
    LEAD COUNSEL
    DETERMINATION
    PURSUANT
    SECURITIES
    ASSERT
    SATISFACTION
    SHOWING
    SHARES
    ADOPT
    
    
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                    FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING,)          Civil No. 96-20711 SW
    on behalf of itself and all )
    others similarly situated        )     ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER
                                     )     INFORMATION FOR PLAINTIFF'S
                 Plaintiff,          )     MOTION TO BE APPOINTED LEAD
                                     )     PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO SECTION
                      v.             )     21D(a)(3)(B) OF THE
                                     )     SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
    QUANTUM CORPORATION,             )
    et al.,                          ))
                 Defendants.         )
    ____________________________)
    
    
    
            Plaintiff Howard Gunty Profit Sharing (Gunty") has moved
    
    to be appointed Lead Plaintiff in this action and for Milberg
    
    Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach to be appointed Lead Counsel
    
    pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
    
    1995 (the "Reform Act"). Defendants have challenged the motion
    
    to appoint Gunty as lead plaintiff asserting that the moving
    
    papers do not set forth sufficient information about Howard
    
    Gunty Profit Sharing and its transactions involving Quantum
    
    Corporation stock. In reply, Plaintiff's assert that Defendants
    
    do not have standing to object to Plaintiff's motion and that,
    
    in any event, it has satisfied the requirements of the Reform
    
    Act.
    
            After considering the papers and arguments of counsel, the
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • Plaintiff Howard Gunty Profit Sharing has moved
  • to be appointed Lead Plaintiff in this action and for Milberg
  • Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach to be appointed Lead Counsel
  • 1995 (the "Reform Act").
  • Defendants have challenged the motion
  • Gunty Profit Sharing and its transactions involving Quantum
  • Corporation stock.
  • In reply, Plaintiff's assert that Defendants
  • After considering the papers and arguments of counsel,
  • Court concludes that Defendants have standing for the limited
  • required showing to be appointed lead plaintiff under the
  • Reform Act.
  • days to supplement its moving papers.
  • On August 30, 1996, Gunty filed the Complaint in this
  • violation of sections 10and 20of the Securities
  • representative party pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4.
  • The certification states that Gunty purchased 400 shares of
  • representing Howard Gunty Profit Sharing.
  • appointment of lead counsel and lead plaintiff's counsel.
  • which member or members of the
  • The determination of "most adequate plaintiff" involves two
  • that the court shall adopt a presumption that the most adequate
  • satisfaction of the requirements of Fed.

  • 3 . OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    COMPLAINT
    QUANTUM
    STANDARD
    SCIENTER
    ALLEGES
    MOTION
    FACTS
    DISMISS
    COURT
    CIR
    RECKLESSNESS
    SAN FRANCISCO
    BIGFOOT DRIVES
    SALES
    COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGES
    ALLEGATIONS
    STULL
    ADEQUATELY ALLEGES FALSITY
    LERACH LLP
    JULES BRODY
    MISREPRESENTATIONS
    REPRESENTATIONS
    JUDICIAL NOTICE
    SCHIFFRIN
    BALA PLAZA EAST
    SECURITIES
    PLEADING STANDARD
    MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                    Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
     MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    HYNES & LERACH LLP
    REED R. KATHREIN (139304)
    JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE (166806)
    JOHN K. GRANT (169813)
    222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94108
    Telephone: 415/288-4545
    - and -
    WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Telephone: 619/231-1058
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
    JULES BRODY
    6 East 45th Street
    4th Floor
    New York, NY 10017
    Telephone: 212/687-7230
      SCHIFFRIN & CRAIG, LTD.
    RICHARD S. SCHIFFRIN
    Three Bala Plaza East
    Suite 400
    Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
    Telephone: 610/667-7706
      Attorneys for Plaintiff
    
                                         UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
    
                                       NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                              SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
  • MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH LLP REED R. KATHREIN JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE JOHN K. GRANT
  • San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone:
  • STULL, STULL & BRODY JULES BRODY
  • SCHIFFRIN & CRAIG, LTD. RICHARD S. SCHIFFRIN
  • Three Bala Plaza East Suite 400 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: 610/667-7706 Attorneys for
  • Plaintiff's Complaint Adequately Alleges Scienter 9
  • Recklessness Remains The Standard Of Liability For Non-Forward-Looking Statements In 10b-5
  • The Complaint Pleads Facts Raising A Strong Inference That Defendants Acted Intentionally Or
  • Defendants' Interpretation of the Form 4s Is Not A Proper Subject For Judicial Notice 24
  • This class action is brought against Quantum Corporation and certain of its officers and
  • securities laws which artificially inflated the trading price of Quantum securities.
  • The present case largely results from the defendants' repeated and favorable
  • During the Class Period, defendants repeatedly represented that Quantum had successfully
  • On the basis of these and similar representations, defendants were able to inflate Quantum's
  • Contrary to Quantum's announcement that its entry into the "retail" market represented an
  • Contrary to defendants' motion, however, the Complaint also demonstrates why the alleged
  • Plaintiff also objects to defendants' improper evidentiary offering concerning the
  • Plaintiff stands by the allegations in the Complaint relating to insider sales.
  • Blake v. Dierdorff, 856 F.2d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir.
  • Plaintiff's Complaint Adequately Alleges Falsity
  • The Committee does not adopt a new and untested pleading standard that would generate
  • "A slowdown in demand for PCs would have a material adverse effect on the Company's results

  • 4 . LITIGANTS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    CALIFORNIA
    SAN JOSE
    
    
    
    5:96cv20711             Howard Gunty Profit v. Quantum Corporation, et al
                                                                                       APPEAL
                                                                             TERMED
    APPEAL
                                     U.S. District Court
    U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
    
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING,                William S. Lerach
    on behalf of itself and all                 [COR LD NTC]
    others similarly situated                   Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
               Plaintiff                        Lerach LLP
                                                600 W Broadway Ste 1800
                                                One America Plaza
                                                San Diego, CA 92101
                                                (619) 231-1058
    
    
         v.
    
    
    QUANTUM CORPORATION                         Boris Feldman
               defendant                        [COR LD NTC]
                                                Aileen L. Arrieta
                                                [COR LD NTC]
                                                Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
                                                Rosati
                                                650 Page Mill Road
                                                Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
                                                650-493-9300
    
    
    MICHAEL A. BROWN                            Aileen L. Arrieta
               defendant                        (See above)
                                                [COR LD NTC]
    
    
    WILLIAM F. ROACH                            Aileen L. Arrieta
               defendant                        (See above)
                                                [COR LD NTC]
    
    
    YOUNG K. SOHN                               Aileen L. Arrieta
               defendant                        (See above)
                                                [COR LD NTC]
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)

  • 5 . DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES ANSWERING BRIEF

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    QUANTUM
    COMPLAINT
    DEFENDANTS
    REFORM ACT
    COURT
    FACTS
    PLEADING
    FRAUD
    CIRCUIT
    FAILS
    DISTRICT COURT
    STANDARD
    ALLEGATIONS
    BIGFOOT DRIVES
    CIR
    DISCLOSURES
    PLAINTIFFS
    CHALLENGED STATEMENTS
    PROFIT SHARING PLAN
    JUDGE WILLIAMS
    STOCK SALES
    PROJECTION
    CCH
    UNITED STATES
    PARTICULARITY
    RISK DISCLOSURES
    CLASS PERIOD
    CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS
    INSUFFICIENT
    
    
    
    
                                          No. 98-15935
    
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    
              HOWARD GUNTY, INC. PROFIT SHARING PLAN, On Behalf
                            of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,
    
                                        Plaintiff-Appellant
    
                                                 v.
    
                              QUANTUM CORPORATION, et al.,
    
                                      Defendants-Appellees.
    
                                     ____________________
    
                           Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the Northern District of California
                                    No. C-96-20711-SW (EAI)
                                 The Honorable Spencer Williams
    
                  DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES' ANSWERING BRIEF
    
    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
    BORIS FELDMAN
    AILEEN L. ARRIETA
    ELLEN H. SOLOMON
    DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ
    650 Page Mill Road
    Palo Alto, CA 94034-1050
    (650) 493-9300
    
                                 Counsel for Defendants-Appellees
                              QUANTUM CORPORATION, et al.
    
    
                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
    CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
    
    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • QUANTUM CORPORATION, et al.,
  • Appeal from the United States District Court
  • THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT FAILED TO MEET THE STANDARD
  • The Complaint Fails To Satisfy The Heightened Pleading Requirements
  • Gunty Fails To Satisfy The Reform Act Standard For Pleading
  • The Complaint Contains No Specific Facts
  • The District Court Correctly Determined That Defendants Have
  • QUANTUM'S EXHAUSTIVE RISK DISCLOSURES SHIELD THE CHALLENGED STATEMENTS UNDER THE BESPEAKS
  • Gunty's Allegations Are Inconsistent With Fraudulent Scienter
  • Acito v. IMCERA Group, Inc., 47 F.3d 47 (2d Cir.
  • Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 90,290 (N.D.
  • Group Profit Sharing Plan v. Philip Morris Cos.,
  • Gunty does not allege that Quantum failed to meet its June quarter projection for sales of
  • If plaintiffs could satisfy their pleading obligations under the Reform Act by offering
  • Whether Judge Williams acted within his discretion in dismissing the Complaint with prejudice?
  • He held that Gunty had again failed to plead its claims with the particularity required by
  • Quantum explained that the primary cause of the shortfall was lower-than-expected sales of
  • With respect to the challenged forward-looking statements, Judge Williams noted that the
  • The Court concluded that the Complaint "amounts to little more than a regurgitation of the
  • the requirements of the Reform Act did nothing more than codify prior Ninth Circuit law.
  • Numerous courts have held that repetition of a laundry list of factors allegedly rendering
  • Defendants' Stock Sales Are Insufficient to Demonstrate A Strong Inference of

  • 6 . DECLARATION OF JOHN K GRANT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    SAN FRANCISCO
    CALIFORNIA
    JOHN
    GRANT
    EXHIBIT
    SUPPORT
    OPPOSITION
    LERACH LLP
    PLAINTIFF
    DEFENDANTS
    SLIP
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    HYNES
    STULL
    BRODY
    FLOOR
    SCHIFFRIN
    BALA
    ATTORNEYS
    LAW
    MOTION
    DISMISS
    CIVIL
    PENALTY
    PERJURY
    FOREGOING
    UNITED STATES
    THEREOF
    UNITED STATES MAILBOX
    
    
    
    
             Declaration of John K. Grant in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to
                                   Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
     MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    HYNES & LERACH LLP
    REED R. KATHREIN (139304)
    JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE (166806)
    JOHN K. GRANT (169813)
    222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94108
    Telephone: 415/288-4545
    - and -
    WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Telephone: 619/231-1058
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
    JULES BRODY
    6 East 45th Street
    4th Floor
    New York, NY 10017
    Telephone: 212/687-7230
      SCHIFFRIN & CRAIG, LTD.
    RICHARD S. SCHIFFRIN
    Three Bala Plaza East
    Suite 400
    Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
    Telephone: 610/667-7706
      Attorneys for Plaintiff
    
                                         UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
    
                                       NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                              SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,
      Plaintiff,
      vs.    QUANTUM CORPORATION, et al.,
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Declaration of John K. Grant in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to
  • STULL, STULL & BRODY JULES BRODY
  • SCHIFFRIN & CRAIG, LTD. RICHARD S. SCHIFFRIN
  • Three Bala Plaza East Suite 400 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: 610/667-7706 Attorneys for
  • I am an attorney with the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, counsel for
  • I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to
  • Exhibit A: Powers v. Eichen, Civil No. 96-1431-B, slip op., Order (S.D.
  • I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
  • Executed this 2nd day of June, 1997, at San Francisco, California.
  • That declarant is and was, at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and
  • That on June 2, 1997, declarant served the DECLARATION OF JOHN K. GRANT IN SUPPORT OF

  • 7 . COMPLAINT 1

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DRIVES
    STOCK
    DEFENDANTS
    STORAGE
    DISK DRIVES
    PLAINTIFF
    CLASS ACTION
    BIGFOOT DRIVES
    SECURITIES LAWS
    BUSINESS
    MARKET
    SELL
    REPORTS
    SHARES
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    OEM
    OEM CUSTOMERS
    STATES DISTRICT COURT
    COMMON STOCK
    QUANTUM CORPORATION
    DATA STORAGE
    PERSONAL COMPUTER
    CONNECTION
    MARK JACKSON
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    CORPORATE OFFICERS
    MISLEADING STATEMENTS
    EXCHANGE ACT
    NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION
    
    
    
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
         HYNES & LERACH LLP
    WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
    ALAN SCHULMAN (128661)
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Telephone: 619/231-1058
    
    STULL, STULL & BRODY
    JULES BRODY
    6 East 45th Street
    4th Floor
    New York, NY 10017
    Telephone: 212/687-7230
    
    SCHIFFRIN & CRAIG, LTD.
    RICHARD S. SCHIFFRIN
    Three Bala Plaza East
    Suite 400
    Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
    Telephone: 610/667-7706
    
    Attorneys for Plaintiff
    
    
                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                          NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                   SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING, On            ) No. C-96 20711
    Behalf of Itself and All Others            )
    Similarly Situated,                        ) CLASS ACTION
                                               )
                               Plaintiff,      )) COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
            vs.                                ) THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
                                               ) OF 1934
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A.            )
    BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K.          )
    SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E.          )
    BARBER, MARK JACKSON and STEVEN C. )
    WHEELWRIGHT,                               ))
                               Defendants.     ) Plaintiff Demands A
    ____________________________________) Trial By Jury
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Attorneys for Plaintiff
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • This is a class action on behalf of all persons who
  • purchased the common stock of Quantum Corporation ("Quantum" or the
  • which manufactures and sells disk drives and related
  • data storage equipment, between February 26, 1996 and June 13, 1996
  • securities laws by the Company and seven of its top insiders.
  • During the Class Period, the defendants artificially inflated
  • Quantum stock to as high as $26-1/8 per share based on representations that Quantum's Desktop
  • as the market digested this bad news.
  • suffering from serious problems with its business,
  • off some of their Quantum shares.
  • "much of its success to its OEM customers," which included Apple
  • million Bigfoot drives in the first quarter,
  • misleading statements,
  • The chart below shows the Individual Defendants' insider
  • the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§78jand 78t, and Rule 10b-5.
  • their gross earnings toward the purchase of Quantum common stock.
  • he knew the adverse non-public information about
  • forecasts and reports of actual operations compared thereto,
  • other corporate officers and employees,
  • connection therewith.
  • Defendant Mark Jackson was the President
  • thus permitting Quantum's insiders to sell
  • QUANTUM CORPORATION MEETS ACCELERATING
  • The Quantum BigfootTM 5.25-inch hard drives fit in the mass storage bays of desktop and
  • Unique disk drives to be used by major PC manufacturers -- Acer,

  • 8 . CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE 96-CV-20711

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANT
    MOTION
    PLAINTIFF
    COUNSEL
    COMPLAINT
    APPOINTMENT
    DISMISS
    LMM
    SPENCER WILLIAMS
    SENIOR JUDGE SPENCER
    OPPOSITION
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT
    DECLARATION
    DHM
    STIPULATION
    MEMORANDUM
    DOROTHY
    FERNANDEZ
    C/R
    SERVE
    OVERNIGHT
    COUNTER-MOTION
    STRIKE
    FILINGS
    DOCKET
    QUANTUM CORPORATION
    DISTRICT
    COURT
    NOTICE SET
    
    
    
    Docket as of July 8, 1998 [retrieved 7/13/98]
    
    Proceedings include all events.                                              TERMED
    5:96cv20711       Howard Gunty Profit v. Quantum Corporation, et al
                                                                                 APPEAL
                                                                       TERMED
    APPEAL
                               U.S. District Court
    U.S. District for the Northern District of California (San Jose)
    
                      CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 96-CV-20711
    
    Howard Gunty Profit v. Quantum Corporation, et al                  Filed:
    08/30/96
    Assigned to: Senior Judge Spencer Williams        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
    
    [Counsel List]
    
    
    8/30/96 1            COMPLAINT yes Summons(es) issued; Fee status pd entered
    on
                         8/30/96 in the amount of $ 120.00 ( Receipt No.
    501430);
                         jury demand    [5:96-cv-20711] (jp)
    
    8/30/96 2            ORDER by Senior Judge Spencer Williams Case Management
                         Statement is due 12/26/96 ; Case Management Conference
    by
                         telephone set for 2:00 1/2/97 ; (attached Notice and
                         Standing Order) (cc: all counsel) [5:96-cv-20711] (jp)
    
    9/19/96 3            AMENDMENT by defendant Quantum Corporation, defendant
                         Michael A. Brown, defendant William F. Roach, defendant
                         Young K. Sohn, defendant Gina M. Bornino, defendant
    Deborah
                         E. Barber, defendant Mark Jackson, defendant Steven C.
                         Wheelwright to notice of appearance and acceptance of
                         service of complaint [5:96-cv-20711] (dhm)
                         [Entry date 10/03/96]
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Docket as of July 8,
  • 5:96cv20711 Howard Gunty Profit v. Quantum Corporation,
  • U.S. District Court
  • U.S. District for the Northern District of California
  • [Counsel List]
  • Michael A. Brown, defendant William F. Roach, defendant
  • [Entry date 10/03/96]
  • acceptance of service of complaint (dhm)
  • Williams by Plaintiff Howard Gunty Profit to be appointed
  • lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead plaintiff's lead
  • motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and for appointment
  • 1/8/97 13 REPLY by Plaintiff re opposition
  • 4/4/97 22 ORDER by Senior Judge Spencer Williams granting motion
  • Notice set for 5/28/97 at 10:00
  • Quantum Corporation re motion to dismiss complaint
  • declaration,
  • counsel) (lmm)
  • 9/30/97 39 STIPULATION and ORDER by Senior Judge Spencer Williams
  • 10/24/97 40 MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to dismiss
  • 10/24/97 41 DECLARATION by Dorothy L. Fernandez on behalf of defendant
  • 11/20/97 45 STIPULATION and ORDER plaintiff shall serve,
  • 12/2/97, defendants shall serve, by facsimile and overnight
  • filings and plaintiff's counter-motion to strike exh.
  • motion to strike exhibits (C/R Diane S. Killman) (Hearing

  • 9 . NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
    ROSATI
    ATTORNEYS
    DEFENDANTS
    MICHAEL
    BROWN
    WILLIAM
    ROACH
    SOHN
    GINA
    BORNINO
    DEBORAH
    COMPLAINT
    PREJUDICE
    SOLOMON
    DOROTHY
    FERNANDEZ
    PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
    PALO ALTO
    CALIFORNIA
    BARBER
    MARK JACKSON
    WHEELWRIGHT
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT
    GUNTY PROFIT SHARING
    PARTIES
    ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
    MOTION
    EPOST
    
    
    
    BORIS FELDMAN (128838)
    AILEEN L. ARRIETA (130868)
    ELLEN H. SOLOMON (189678)
    DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ (184266)
    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
    Professional Corporation
    650 Page Mill Road
    Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
    Telephone: (650) 493-9300
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. BROWN,
    WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K. SOHN,
    GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E. BARBER,
    MARK JACKSON AND STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT
    
                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                               SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING, On  )  Case No.: C 96 20711 SW
    Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly             ) [filed Apr. 10, 1998]
    Situated,                                             )) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF
                          Plaintiff,                      ) ORDER GRANTING
                                                                DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
               v.                                         )) DISMISS FIRST AMENDED
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. ) COMPLAINT WITH
    BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K.  ) PREJUDICE
    SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E.  )
    BARBER, MARK JACKSON, AND                             )
    STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT,                                ))
                          Defendants.,                    )
    ______________________________________ ))
    TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
    
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 6, 1998, the Court entered the attached Order
    Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint With Prejudice.
    
    Dated: April 10, 1998                     WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
    
                                              By:
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • BORIS FELDMAN AILEEN L. ARRIETA ELLEN H. SOLOMON DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
  • Professional Corporation
  • Palo Alto, California 94304-1050 Telephone:
  • HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING, On) Case No.:
  • QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A.) COMPLAINT WITH BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K.) PREJUDICE
  • TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
  • PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 6, 1998, the Court entered the attached Order Granting
  • File to epost from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

  • 10 . ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    FACTS
    COMPLAINT
    FAC
    ALLEGATIONS
    BIGFOOT
    QUANTUM
    DEFENDANTS
    COURT
    DISMISS
    BIGFOOT DRIVES
    SECURITIES
    ACT
    PARTICULARITY
    FRAUD
    CIR
    REFORM ACT
    PLEADING
    MOTION
    BASIS
    EXPECTATIONS
    MISLEADING
    STOCK
    PLEAD
    OEM
    CUSTOMERS
    REASONS
    STANDARDS
    SALES
    
    
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                  FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING,         ) CIVIL NO. 96 20711 SW
                                         ) [FILED APR. 6, 1998]
                   Plaintiff,            )) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
                   v.                    ) MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST
                                         ) AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. ) PREJUDICE
    BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG       )
    K. SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO,            )
    DEBORAH E. BARBER, MARK JACKSON, )
    AND STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT,           ))
                   Defendants.           )
    _________________________________)
    
    
         This litigation is a securities class action lawsuit filed on
    
    behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Quantum
    
    Corporation ("Quantum") between February 26, 1996 and June 13, 1996
    
    ("proposed class period") against Quantum, six of its officers, and
    
    one of its directors.1 On August 14, 1997, this Court dismissed
    
    the initial complaint of Plaintiff Howard Gunty Profit Sharing
    
    ("Gunty") with leave to amend ("Order"). Gunty filed its First
    
    ____________________
    
         1 The officers and director are collectively referred to as the
    "Individual Defendants."
    
    
    
    
    Amended Complaint ("FAC") on September 12, 1997. On February 3,
    
    1998, this Court heard oral argument and took under submission
    
    Defendants' motion to dismiss the FAC. After carefully considering
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A.) PREJUDICE BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG)
  • This litigation is a securities class action lawsuit filed on
  • the initial complaint of Plaintiff Howard Gunty Profit Sharing
  • The officers and director are collectively referred to as the "Individual Defendants."
  • Amended Complaint on September 12,
  • Defendants' motion to dismiss the FAC.
  • has again failed to plead its claims with the particularity
  • Reform Act of 1995,
  • The FAC alleges that during the proposed class period,
  • allegations that Defendants had falsely represented that Quantum's
  • launched volume production of the Bigfoot even though the product
  • Several of Quantum's OEM
  • Bigfoot drives, many of suspect quality," and failed obtain the
  • order, on a firm basis, large quantities of Bigfoot drives.
  • On May 20, 1996, Quantum's stock reached a Class Period high
  • to be below Wall Street's expectations.
  • a number of OEM customers pushed out orders.
  • The FAC does not allege how many Bigfoot units were actually sold in the first quarter, but
  • that no set of facts could support plaintiff's claim for relief.
  • Corp., 815 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir.
  • dismissed as a matter of law for two reasons:
  • Pleading Standards Generally
  • Complaints alleging fraud must meet the heightened pleading
  • the time, place, and the nature of the misleading statements,
  • Plaintiff must plead with particularity
  • lacked a reasonable basis for projecting sales of 1 to 1.5 million

  • 11 . STATEMENT OF DECISION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    QUANTUM CORPORATION
    COMPLAINT
    JUDGE BREYER
    MICHAEL
    BROWN
    WILLIAM
    ROACH
    SOHN
    GINA
    BORNINO
    DEBORAH
    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH
    ROSATI
    BARBER
    MARK JACKSON
    WHEELWRIGHT
    NETMANAGE
    DISMISS
    COUNSEL
    PARTICULARITY
    FACTS
    ALLEGATIONS
    ALLEGE
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    SCHEME
    DEFRAUD
    INSIDER TRADING
    EPOST
    
    
    
    BORIS FELDMAN (128838)
    AILEEN L. ARRIETA (130868)
    ELLEN H. SOLOMON (189678)
    DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ (184266)
    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
    Professional Corporation
    650 Page Mill Road
    Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
    Telephone: (650) 493-9300
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. BROWN,
    WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K. SOHN,
    GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E. BARBER,
    MARK JACKSON AND STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT
    
                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                               SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING, On  )  Case No.: C 96 20711 SW
    Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly             ) [filed Mar. 31, 1998]
    Situated,                                             )) STATEMENT OF
                          Plaintiff,                      ) RECENT DECISION
               v.                                         ))
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. )
    BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K.  )
    SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E.  )
    BARBER, MARK JACKSON, AND                             )
    STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT,                                ))
                          Defendants.                     )
    ______________________________________ ))
    Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(e), defendants Quantum Corporation, Michael A.
    Brown, William F. Roach, Young K. Sohn, Gina M. Bornino, Deborah E. Barber, Mark
    Jackson, and Steven C. Wheelwright, submit for the Court's consideration the following
    decision, Head v. NetManage, Inc., No. C 97-4385 CRB, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24,
    1998). A copy of this decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A. This order was not
    available prior to the hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended
    complaint, which took place on February 3, 1998.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A.) BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K.) SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO,
  • A copy of this decision is attached hereto as Exhibit A. This order was not available prior
  • In NetManage, Judge Breyer dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with leave to amend under the
  • Judge Breyer held, among other things, that "complaint made 'upon investigation of counsel'
  • Thus, when pleading upon investigation of counsel, "laintiffs must state with particularity
  • Finally, with respect to claims against individual defendants, Judge Breyer held that
  • File to epost from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

  • 12 . REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    REFORM ACT
    ALLEGATIONS
    DEFENDANTS
    QUANTUM
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    PLEADING
    BIGFOOT DRIVES
    PLEAD
    ARRIETA
    AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS
    PLEADING REQUIREMENTS
    LAW
    PARTICULARITY
    MEM
    SUPP
    FACTUAL BASIS
    PLAINTIFFS
    LAW INTERPRETING
    STOCK SALE
    RISK DISCLOSURES
    PLEADING STANDARD
    SECOND CIRCUIT
    CONSUMER PREFERENCES
    INFERENCE
    SILICON GRAPHICS
    ARRIETA DECL
    SECURITIES
    ADOPT PRIOR LAW
    VAGUE STATEMENTS
    
    
    
    BORIS FELDMAN (128838)
    AILEEN L. ARRIETA (130868)
    ELLEN H. SOLOMON (189678)
    DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ (184266)
    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
    Professional Corporation
    650 Page Mill Road
    Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
    Telephone: (650) 493-9300
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. BROWN,
    WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K. SOHN,
    GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E. BARBER,
    MARK JACKSON AND STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT
    
                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                               SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING, On                         )  Case No.: C 96 20711 SW
    Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly               ) [filed Jan. 21, 1998]
    Situated,                                               )) DEFENDANTS' REPLY
                          Plaintiff,                        ) MEMORANDUM IN
                                                              SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
               v.                                           )) DISMISS AMENDED
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A.                         ) COMPLAINT
    BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K.                       ) DATE: February 3, 1998
    SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E.                       ) TIME: 10:00 a.m.
    BARBER, MARK JACKSON, AND                               ) COURT: Honorable Spencer
    STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT,                                  ))            Williams
                          Defendants.                       )            Room E, 15th Fl.
    ________________________________________ ))
    
    
                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
    INTRODUCTION
    
    ARGUMENT
    
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS TO MEET THE HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS OF THE REFORM ACT
  • The Reform Act Did Not Adopt Prior Law Interpreting Rule 9.
  • Gunty Fails to Plead the Factual Basis of Its Allegations About the
  • E. Quantum's Vague Statements of Optimism Are Still Not Actionable.
  • F. Quantum Had No Duty To Disclose Publicly Available Information
  • Gunty's Stock Sale Allegations Do Not Establish a "Strong Inference"
  • F. Supp.
  • In re Silicon Graphics, Inc.
  • Securities & Exchange Act of 1934, § 21 D,
  • Plaintiff Howard Gunty Profit Sharing continues to ignore the new pleading standards under
  • Gunty's pleading is insufficient under the Reform Act, which requires Gunty to plead the
  • Nor does Gunty plead specific facts that give rise to a strong inference of scienter.
  • Gunty relies exclusively on inflated stock sale allegations that do not provide
  • Further, if the allegations in the Amended Complaint are based on information and belief,
  • Mem.
  • Rather, the Reform Act's pleading requirements for falsity were adapted from Second Circuit
  • (the new "heightened pleading standard" for falsity "is based in part on the pleading
  • D'Amato) (Arrieta Decl.,
  • Gunty Fails to Plead the Factual Basis of Its Allegations About the Bigfoot Drive.
  • For example, Gunty alleges that the Company's statements were misleading because Quantum
  • Thus, even if Gunty's conclusory accusations of "problems" with Bigfoot are accepted as true,
  • F. Quantum Had No Duty To Disclose Publicly Available Information About Consumer Preferences.
  • Quantum's exhaustive risk disclosures warned of precisely the "problems" Gunty says were

  • 13 . OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    FACTS
    PLAINTIFF
    MISLEADING
    BIGFOOT DRIVES
    COMPLAINT
    QUANTUM
    FRAUD
    MOTION
    STANDARD
    OPTIMISTIC STATEMENTS
    FAC
    STOCK
    INFERENCE
    CIR
    SAN FRANCISCO
    ALLEGATIONS
    FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
    CONSUMER PREFERENCES
    SAFE HARBOR
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    FAC ALLEGES
    STOCK PRICE
    PARTICULARITY
    PSLRA
    OEMS
    REPRESENTATIONS
    CLASS PERIOD
    SUCCESSFUL
    DISK DRIVES
    
    
    
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    HYNES & LERACH LLP
    REED R. KATHREIN (139304)
    JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE (166806)
    JOHN K. GRANT (169813)
    222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94108
    Telephone: 415/288-4545
         - and -
    WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Telephone: 619/231-1058
    
    STULL, STULL & BRODY
    JULES BRODY
    6 East 45th Street
    4th Floor
    New York, NY 10017
    Telephone: 212/687-7230
    
    SCHIFFRIN & CRAIG, LTD.
    RICHARD S. SCHIFFRIN
    Three Bala Plaza East
    Suite 400
    Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
    Telephone: 610/667-7706
    
    Attorneys for Plaintiff
    
                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                               SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING, On                            No. C-96-20711-SW(EAI)
    Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,        [filed Dec. 17, 1997]
    
                          Plaintiff,                           CLASS ACTION
    
               vs.                                             DATE: February 3, 1998
                                                               TIME: 10:00 a.m.
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, et al.,                               DEPT: Room E, 15th Floor
                          Defendants.                               (The Honorable
    __________________________________________        Spencer Williams)
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
  • Plaintiffs Have Alleged False And Misleading Statements With The Required Particularity
  • Defendants Are Not Alleged To Have Committed Fraud By Failing To Disclose Information About
  • NEITHER THE "SAFE HARBOR" OF THE PSLRA NOR THE BESPEAKS-CAUTION DOCTRINE SHIELDS DEFENDANTS'
  • The FAC Adequately Alleges Scienter By Pleading Facts Raising A Strong Inference That
  • On August 14, 1997, this Court granted defendants'motions to dismiss plaintiff's original
  • Order at 7, the court held that the absence of allegations showing that the statements were
  • On September 12, 1997, plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, which fulfilled the
  • Specifically, the FAC alleges that defendants knew, prior to and during the Class Period,
  • plaintiff identifies specific conditions existing before and during the Class Period which
  • 122 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.
  • Moreover, contrary to defendants' arguments, defendants' statements are not protected by the
  • Quantum is a manufacturer of computer disk drives.
  • During the last half of 1995, Quantum was suffering from serious problems with its business,
  • In late 1995, Quantum embarked on a business plan that, the defendants believed, would return
  • By the beginning of the Class Period, the Individual Defendants knew that Quantum's OEMs were
  • Defendants' representations of consistent product quality and gaining market share would not
  • Additionally, on May 8, 1996, CEO Brown reaffirmed Quantum's earlier statements, telling the
  • For example, defendants argue that their sales of 265,545 shares of stock over a 14day
  • The Optimistic Statements Challenged Here Are Not "Too Vague" To Be Actionable
  • The "strong inference" standard of §21Dis drawn from Second Circuit cases holding that a

  • 14 . ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CREATION OF ETHICAL WALL

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFFS
    STATE BAR
    COURT
    QUANTUM CORPORATION
    ATTORNEY REPRESENTING PLAINTIFFS
    DEFENDANTS
    CALIFORNIA
    MICHAEL
    WILLIAM
    SHARING
    ETHICAL WALL
    HEREBY
    DISCRETION
    PSLRA
    DISTRICT
    PRINCIPLES
    COMITY
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT
    PENDING
    JUDGE SPENCER WILLIAMS
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    NORTHERN DISTRICT
    PURSUANT
    LAWSUIT
    DISCLOSE
    FEDERAL CLASS ACTION
    UNJUST
    EXCEPTION
    PROTECTIVE ORDER
    
    
    
    BORIS FELDMAN (State Bar # 128838)
    AILEEN L. ARRIETA (State Bar # 130868)
    ELLEN H. SOLOMON (State Bar # 189678)
    DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ (State Bar # 184266)
    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
    Professional Corporation
    650 Page Mill Road
    Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
    Telephone: (650) 493-9300
     Attorneys for Defendants
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. BROWN,
    WILLIAM F. ROACH, and YOUNG K. SOHN
    
    
                                          SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                            COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
    
    
    HOWARD GUNTY, INC. PROFIT                                )  Case No.: CV760370
    SHARING PLAN AND BERT GOLDMAN,  ) [filed Oct. 30, 1997]
    on Behalf of Themselves and All Others                   )
    Similarly Situated,                                      ) ORDER GRANTING
                                                             ) DEFENDANTS' MOTION
                          Plaintiffs,                        ) FOR CREATION OF
                                                             ) ETHICAL WALL
               v.                                            )
                                                             )
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. ) Date: Oct. 16, 1997
    BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, and                             ) Time: 1:30 p.m.
    YOUNG K. SOHN,                                           ) Dept: 22
                                                             )
                          Defendants.                        )
    ______________________________________ )
    
    
    The parties having briefed, and presented argument, on defendants' motion for creation of
    ethical wall, the Court hereby orders as follows:
    
    WHEREAS, under Schneider v. Vennard, 183 Cal. App. 3d 1340 (1986), this Court has
    discretion to stay this action entirely due to the existence of a parallel proceeding in
    federal court;
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • BORIS FELDMAN (State Bar # 128838)
  • California 94304-1050 Telephone: 493-9300 Attorneys for Defendants
  • WILLIAM F. ROACH, and YOUNG K. SOHN
  • SHARING PLAN AND BERT GOLDMAN,)
  • QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A.) Date:
  • The parties having briefed, and presented argument, on defendants' motion for creation of
  • this Court has discretion to stay this action entirely due to the existence of a parallel
  • WHEREAS, this Court has discretion to enter an order creating a temporary ethical wall
  • In order to preserve defendants' rights under the PSLRA, and in accordance with principles of
  • IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs not be permitted to use any information obtained by them
  • Pursuant to this order, no attorney representing plaintiffs in this lawsuit may disclose any
  • If plaintiffs discover any documents with respect to which the probative value is so great

  • 15 . MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    QUANTUM
    HOWARD GUNTY
    REFORM ACT
    DEFENDANTS
    FACTS
    COURT
    BIGFOOT DRIVES
    AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS
    FERNANDEZ
    DEMAND
    PLEADING REQUIREMENTS
    ALLEGATIONS
    CIR
    LITIG
    SECURITIES
    HOWARD GUNTY ALLEGES
    QUANTUM CORPORATION
    FERNANDEZ DECL
    PROFIT SHARING
    SAFE HARBOR
    CCH
    EXCHANGE ACT
    SILICON GRAPHICS
    ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
    CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS
    QUANTUM OFFICERS
    DISK DRIVES
    CLASS PERIOD
    FACTS GIVING RISE
    
    
    
    BORIS FELDMAN (128838)
    AILEEN L. ARRIETA (130868)
    ELLEN H. SOLOMON (189678)
    DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ (184266)
    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
    Professional Corporation
    650 Page Mill Road
    Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
    Telephone: (650) 493-9300
     Attorneys for Defendants
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. BROWN,
    WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K. SOHN,
    GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E. BARBER,
    MARK JACKSON AND STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT
    
    
                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                               SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING, On  )  Case No.: C 96 20711 SW
    Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly               ) [filed Oct. 24, 1997]
    Situated,                                               )
                                                            ) MEMORANDUM IN
                          Plaintiff,                        ) SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
                                                            ) DISMISS AMENDED
               v.                                           ) COMPLAINT
                                                            )
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. ) DATE: January 6, 1998
    BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K.  ) TIME: 10:00 a.m.
    SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E.  ) COURT: Honorable Spencer
    BARBER, MARK JACKSON, AND                               )                  Williams
    STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT,                                  )                  Room E, 15th Fl.
                                                            )
                          Defendants.                       )
    ______________________________________ )
    
    
                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • 493-9300 Attorneys for Defendants
  • HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING, On) Case No.:
  • QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A.) DATE: January 6, 1998 BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K.)
  • THE AMENDED COMPLAINT FAILS TO SATISFY THE HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS OF THE REFORM ACT
  • 47 F.3d 47 (2d Cir.
  • Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 99,465 (N.D.
  • Sec. Litig.,
  • In re Silicon Graphics, Inc.
  • Court,
  • Group Profit Sharing Plan v. Philip Morris Cos.,
  • Securities & Exchange Act of 1934, § 21D, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4
  • Defendants request that the Court dismiss Howard Gunty's Amended Complaint for failure to
  • Howard Gunty ignored the new pleading requirements imposed by the Reform Act.
  • Howard Gunty again seeks to impose liability on the basis of conclusory allegations about
  • These allegations are unsupported by any specific references to facts showing that
  • Howard Gunty has failed to correct a single deficiency identified by the Court in dismissing
  • Howard Gunty alleges that it bought 400 shares of Quantum stock on March 11,
  • Quantum explained that sales of Bigfoot drives in the First Quarter were below prior internal
  • Are Quantum's statements protected by the Reform Act's safe harbor provisions?
  • Does the Amended Complaint plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of scienter, as
  • Rep.") (Fernandez Decl.
  • Apr. 15, 1997) (Fernandez Decl.
  • Immediately prior to the start of the class period, Quantum filed its third quarter report on
  • Unable to plead facts about Quantum that imply scienter, Howard Gunty relies on stock sales

  • 16 . COMPLAINT 2

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DRIVES
    STOCK
    BUSINESS
    CLASS PERIOD
    STORAGE
    DISK DRIVES
    INSIDER
    BIGFOOT DRIVES
    OEM
    DEFENDANTS
    PLAINTIFF
    SELL
    MARKET
    F97
    OEM CUSTOMERS
    DATA STORAGE
    FRAUDULENT SCHEME
    CLASS ACTION
    MAJOR OEMS
    INTERNAL CORPORATE DOCUMENTS
    MANUFACTURING
    QUANTUM CORPORATION
    SUCCESSFUL
    PERSONAL COMPUTER
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    ADVERSE NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION
    INCH DRIVES
    OEM QUALIFICATION
    MISLEADING
    
    
    
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
    HYNES & LERACH LLP
    WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Telephone: 619/231-1058
               - and -
    REED R. KATHREIN (139304)
    JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE (166806)
    JOHN K. GRANT (169813)
    222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94108
    Telephone: 415/288-4545
     STULL, STULL & BRODY
    JULES BRODY
    6 East 45th Street
    4th Floor
    New York, NY 10017
    Telephone: 212/687-7230
     SCHIFFRIN & CRAIG, LTD.
    RICHARD S. SCHIFFRIN
    Three Bala Plaza East
    Suite 400
    Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
    Telephone: 610/667-7706
     Attorneys for Plaintiff
    
    
                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                                   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                               SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT                                     No. C-96-20711-SW(EAI)
    SHARING, On Behalf of Itself                            [filed Sep. 12, 1997]
    and All Others Similarly Situated,
                                                            CLASS ACTION
                          Plaintiff,
                                                            FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
               vs.                                          FOR VIOLATION OF THE
                                                            SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Three Bala Plaza East Suite 400 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: 610/667-7706 Attorneys for
  • QUANTUM CORPORATION, et al.,
  • This is a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Quantum
  • During the Class Period the Company and seven of its top insiders pursued a fraudulent scheme
  • The defendants artificially inflated Quantum stock to as high as $26-1/8 per share based on substantial revenue and earnings per share gains throughout Fiscal 1997, to end Mar. 31, 1997.
  • Quantum's stock immediately collapsed and then fell to as low as $10-7/8, as the market
  • However, just a few weeks before the truth about the problems with and failure of Quantum's
  • While other disk drive stocks soared, Quantum's stock fell because Quantum was suffering from
  • Thus, by early 1996, Quantum's insiders were determined to halt the decline in Quantum's
  • demonstrates our continued ability to deliver compelling solutions to the marketplace," and
  • Quantum also assured investors that it "will be successful with its new business model" and,
  • For instance, Quantum's 5.25 inch Bigfoot drives had not met an enthusiastic response from
  • As a result of defendants' materially false and misleading statements, Quantum's stock was
  • manufacturer and marketer of disk drives and other data storage products.
  • Because of defendant Brown's positions, he knew the adverse non-public information about er information provided to him in connection herewith.
  • The defendants identified in ¶14-are referred to herein as the Individual Defendants.
  • Before Quantum went into volume production of its new Bigfoot drive, its internal corporate
  • The process of DVT and OEM qualification of the Bigfoot drive began in late 1995 but was a
  • Contrary to the representation that customer interest in Bigfoot was "very exciting" and
  • CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

  • 17 . ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    DEFENDANTS
    REFORM ACT
    QUANTUM
    SECURITIES
    COURT
    PARTICULARITY
    ALLEGATIONS
    PLEAD
    FACTS
    CLASS ACTION
    ALLEGE
    MOTION
    BIGFOOT DRIVES
    FRAUD
    MISLEADING
    PLEADING REQUIREMENTS
    PROJECTIONS
    STANDARDS
    CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS
    REASONABLE BASIS
    UNITED STATES
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT
    QUANTUM CORPORATION
    SECURITIES LITIGATION
    COURT DISMISSES
    INSUFFICIENT
    DISCOVERY
    CUSTOMERS
    
    
    
                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    
                 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    
    
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING         ) CIVIL NO. 96 20711 SW
                                        ) [filed Aug. 14, 1997]
                   Plaintiff,           )) ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
                   v.                   ) WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
                                        )
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. )
    BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG      )
    K. SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO,           )
    DEBORAH E. BARBER, MARK JACKSON, )
    AND STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT,          ))
                   Defendants.          )
    _________________________________)
    
    
         This litigation is a securities class action lawsuit filed on
    
    behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Quantum
    
    Corporation between February 26, 1996 and June 13, 1996 (the "Class
    
    Period") against Quantum, six of its officers, and one of its
    
    directors. On July 30, 1997, after hearing oral argument, the
    
    Court took under submission Defendants' motion to dismiss
    
    Plaintiff's Complaint. After carefully considering the papers,
    
    arguments of counsel, and legal authority, the Court concludes that
    
    Plaintiff has failed to plead its claims with particularity as
    
    required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and the Securities Litigation
    
    Reform Act of 1995 ("Reform Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4. Therefore,
    
    the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend.
    
                                 I. BACKGROUND
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  • QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A.) BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG)
  • This litigation is a securities class action lawsuit filed on
  • Court took under submission Defendants' motion to dismiss
  • Plaintiff has failed to plead its claims with particularity as
  • P. 9and the Securities Litigation
  • Reform Act of 1995,
  • the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend.
  • On August 30, 1996, Plaintiff Howard Gunty Profit Sharing
  • the Complaint alleges that Defendants falsely
  • that no set of facts could support plaintiff's claim for relief.
  • insufficient facts under a cognizable theory.
  • "conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences
  • business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection
  • an omission that rendered another statement misleading;
  • Pleading Standards Generally
  • As part of the pleading requirements established by the Reform
  • E. Discovery
  • Medhekar v. United States Dist.
  • clear that their earlier statements and projections were incorrect.
  • Plaintiff, however, fails to allege with particularity that they
  • Quantum Bigfoot drives is very high;" "for more than a decade,
  • show that Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for any of their
  • even specify the customers' orders themselves.
  • For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's

  • 18 . PETITION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    STOCK
    QUANTUM
    RESPONDENT COURT
    LAW
    DEMURRER
    PETITIONER
    PEREMPTORY WRIT
    PETITION
    CALIFORNIA
    MANDATE
    AMENDED COMPLAINT
    APPEALS
    SECURITIES
    STOCK PURCHASE PLAN
    EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE
    REAL PARTIES
    ADEQUATE REMEDY
    OVERRULING
    SELL STOCK
    CORRECT RESPONDENT
    FALSE STATEMENTS
    MARKET ACTIVITY
    DEFENDANT
    BERT GOLDMAN
    MEMORANDUM
    AUTHORITIES
    VIOLATION
    LIABILITY
    DISCRETION
    
    
    
                               COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                            SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    
    
    QUANTUM CORPORATION,                         | SANTA CLARA
         Petitioner,                             | SUPERIOR COURT
      v.                                         | CASE NO. CV760370
    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA  |
    FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA                      | From the July 8, 1997
    CLARA,                                       | Order of the Honorable
         Respondent.                             | Jeremy D. Fogel of the
    __________________________________  | Santa Clara Superior Court
    HOWARD GUNTY, INC. PROFIT                    |
    SHARING and BERT GOLDMAN, On  |
    Behalf of Themselves and All Others          |
    Similarly Situated,                          |
         Real Parties in Interest.               |
    __________________________________  |
    
                          _________________________________________________________
    
                         PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,
                         CERTIORARI, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE RELIEF; MEMORANDUM
                             OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF;
                                       EXHIBITS FILED SEPARATELY HEREWITH
                          _________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    
                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
    INTRODUCTION
    
    PETITION
    
    A. CLAIMS ASSERTED IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
    
    B. THE RESPONDENT COURT OVERRULED PETITIONER'S DEMURRER TO
    THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE CORPORATIONS
    CODE
    
    C. PETITIONER HAS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW AND HAS PROPERLY
    FILED THIS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE
    
    PRAYER
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
  • SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA |
  • PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE, PROHIBITION,
  • MEMORANDUM
  • OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF;
  • CLAIMS ASSERTED IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
  • THE RESPONDENT COURT OVERRULED PETITIONER'S DEMURRER TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
  • PETITIONER HAS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW AND HAS PROPERLY FILED THIS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
  • THIS COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS POWER TO ISSUE A PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE TO CORRECT
  • RESPONDENT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN OVERRULING PETITIONER'S DEMURRER TO THE FIRST CAUSE
  • Quantum Did Not Make Statements For the Purpose of Inducing Its Employees to Buy Company Stock
  • Securities & Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5,
  • Civil Appeals and Writs
  • May an open market purchaser of a company's stock maintain a claim against the company under
  • In this case, Real Parties claim that Quantum should be liable under Section 25400solely
  • Because nearly all public companies maintain an Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and make
  • postponing review of these questions until a post-judgment appeal would provide Petitioner
  • Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court issue a peremptory writ of
  • Petitioner is a defendant in a complex securities class action.
  • Plaintiff Howard Gunty, Inc. Profit Sharing, together with another plaintiff Bert Goldman,
  • Respondent Court relied upon the existence of Quantum's Employee Stock Purchase Plan as the
  • Instead, Real Parties base their First Cause of Action against Quantum on the allegation that

  • 19 . MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    QUANTUM
    PLEAD
    FACTS
    DEFENDANTS
    SCIENTER
    FERNANDEZ
    COURT
    SAFE HARBOR
    REFORM ACT
    LITIG
    PLAINTIFF
    SECURITIES
    BORNINO
    DISMISS
    CIR
    QUANTUM CORPORATION
    HONORABLE SPENCER WILLIAMS
    ALLEGATIONS
    CALCULATING
    DISK DRIVES
    MARK JACKSON
    WHEELWRIGHT
    PROFIT SHARING
    FERNANDEZ DECL
    CCH
    EXCHANGE ACT
    UNITED STATES
    QUANTUM OFFICERS
    PLAINTIFF ASSERTS
    
    
    
    
    
    BORIS FELDMAN (State Bar # 128838)
    AILEEN L. ARRIETA (State Bar # 130868)
    DAVID PRIEBE (State Bar # 148679)
    DOROTHY L. FERNANDEZ (State Bar # 184266)
    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
    Professional Corporation
    650 Page Mill Road
    Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
    Telephone: (415) 493-9300
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. BROWN,
    WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K. SOHN,
    GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E. BARBER,
    MARK JACKSON AND STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT
    
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                                     SAN JOSE DIVISION
    
                           HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING,
                                     On Behalf of Itself and
                                  All Others Similarly Situated,
                                             Plaintiff,
    
                                                 v.
    
                   QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. BROWN,
                           WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K. SOHN,
                       GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E. BARBER,
                   MARK JACKSON, AND STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT,
                                           Defendants.
    
                                   Case No.: C 96 20711 SW
    
                           DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM
                      IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
                                      DATE: May 28, 1997
                                         TIME: 10:00 a.m.
                             COURT: Honorable Spencer Williams
    
                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
    INTRODUCTION
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. BROWN,
  • GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E. BARBER,
  • MARK JACKSON, AND STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT,
  • COURT: Honorable Spencer Williams
  • THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT PLEAD WHY ANY STATEMENT WAS FALSE WHEN MADE
  • Acito v. IMCERA Group, Inc., 47 F.3d 47 (2d Cir.
  • In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig.,
  • Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 99,325 (N.D.
  • Medhekar v. United States Dist.
  • Group Profit Sharing Plan v. Philip Morris Cos.,
  • Securities & Exchange Act of 1934 § 21D,
  • Defendants request that the Court dismiss plaintiff's Complaint for failure to plead falsity
  • It also must plead specific facts giving rise to a strong inference that each defendant acted
  • plaintiff claims that discovery will provide the factual details for the Complaint's
  • This lawsuit focuses on a new line of high capacity disk drives called the "Bigfoot" family.
  • Does the Complaint plead fraud with the particularity required by the Private Securities
  • Are Quantum's statements protected by the Reform Act's safe harbor provisions?
  • Plaintiff asserts that Apple, Compaq, and Hewlett-Packard cancelled or delayed orders for
  • from anticipating that international sales growth rate would outpace domestic sales growth")
  • Unable to plead facts about Quantum that imply scienter, the Complaint relies on stock sales
  • See Appendix Calculating Quantum Officers' and Directors' Stock Sales,

  • 20 . AMENDED COMPLAINT

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    QUANTUM
    PLAINTIFFS
    DEMAND
    QUANTUM STOCK
    DRIVES
    CALIFORNIA
    BIGFOOT DRIVES
    BUSINESS
    SHARES
    PLANS
    STORAGE
    MARKET
    CLASS PERIOD
    REPORTS
    PRICE
    OEM CUSTOMERS
    DISK DRIVES
    SAN FRANCISCO
    INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
    MISLEADING STATEMENTS
    PERSONAL COMPUTER
    SUPERIOR COURT
    ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN/MEDIA BLITZ
    FRAUDULENT
    CONNECTIONS
    VICE PRESIDENT
    CORPORATE OFFICERS
    WILLFULLY PARTICIPATING
    MATERIAL FACTS
    
    
    
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
         HYNES & LERACH LLP
    REED R. KATHREIN (139304)
    JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE (166806)
    JOHN K. GRANT (169813)
    222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94108
    Telephone: 415/288-4545
           - and -
    WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    San Diego, CA 92101.
    Telephone: 619/231-1058
    
    STULL, STULL & BRODY                     SCHIFFRIN CRAIG, LTD.
    JULES BRODY                              RICHARD S. SCHIFFRIN
    6 East 45th Street                       Three Bala Plaza East
    4th Floor                                Suite 400
    New York, NY 10017                       Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
    Telephone: 212/687-7230                  Telephone: 610/667-7706
    
    Attorneys for Plaintiffs
    
    
                      SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
    
    
    HOWARD GUNTY, INC. PROFIT SHARING         ) Case No. CV760370
    PLAN and BERT GOLDMAN, On Behalf of ) [filed Mar. 20, 1997]
    Themselves and All Others Similarly ) CLASS ACTION
    Situated,                                 )) AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
                              Plaintiffs,     ) DAMAGES BASED UPON:
                                              ) (1) VIOLATION OF CAL.
           vs.                                )          CORP. CODE §§25400 AND
                                              )          25500;
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A.           ) (2) VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV.
    BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K.         )          CODE §§1709-1710; AND
    SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E.         ) (3) VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS.
    BARBER, MARK JACKSON and STEVEN C. )                 & PROF. CODE §§17200,
    WHEELWRIGHT,                              )          ET SEQ.
                                              )
                              Defendants.     ) Plaintiffs Demand A Trial
    ___________________________________            By Jury
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone:
  • SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
  • Plaintiffs,) DAMAGES BASED UPON:
  • Plaintiffs Demand A Trial
  • Each of the Individual Defendants resides in and is a
  • Quantum has its principal
  • place of business in California.
  • which manufactures and sells disk drives and related
  • data storage equipment, between February 26, 1996 and June 13, 1996
  • the defendants artificially inflated Quantum stock to as
  • share and continued to fall to as low as $10-7/8, as the market
  • stock during the months before the beginning of the Class Period
  • As a result of the large price
  • off some of their Quantum shares.
  • "much of its success to its OEM customers," which included Apple
  • million Bigfoot drives in the first quarter,
  • misleading statements,
  • The chart below shows the Individual Defendants' insider
  • advertising campaign/media blitz set forth herein or transmitted to
  • forecasts and reports of actual operations compared thereto,
  • Vice President of Worldwide Sales of Quantum during the Class
  • operating plans, budgets and forecasts and reports of actual
  • operations compared thereto), conversations and connections with
  • other corporate officers and employees,
  • Each defendant willfully participated in the fraudulent
  • willfully participating in a conspiracy that operated as a fraud on
  • The Quantum BigfootTM 5.25-inch hard drives fit in the mass storage bays of desktop and
  • material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading:

  • 21 . REPLY MEMO IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    COMPLAINT
    CALIFORNIA
    COURT
    DEFENDANTS
    FAILS
    STOCK
    QUANTUM
    SECURITIES
    CORPORATIONS
    SUPERIOR COURT
    SATISFY
    MEM
    ARRIETA
    SELL STOCK
    JURISDICTION
    CLASS PERIOD
    SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS
    DEFENDANTS BORNINO
    WHEELWRIGHT
    MISLEADING STATEMENTS
    SECURITIES LAWS
    ALLEGATIONS
    PROFESSIONS
    WILLIAM
    LIMITATIONS
    VIOLATION
    TRADE PRACTICES ACT
    LIABILITY
    PLAINTIFF ASSERTS
    
    
    
     BORIS FELDMAN, State Bar # 128838
    AILEEN L. ARRIETA, State Bar # 130868
    WILSON, SONSINI, GOODRICH & ROSATI
    Professional Corporation
    650 Page Mill Road
    Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
    Telephone: (415) 493-9300
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL
    A. BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K.
    SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E. BARBER,
    MARK JACKSON, AND STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT
    
    
                            SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                  COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
    
    
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING, On           )     CASE NO.: CV760370
    Behalf of Itself and All Others           )
    Similarly Situated,                       )     REPLY MEMORANDUM IN
                                              )     SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
                   Plaintiff,                 )     DEMURRER
                                              )
             v.                               )     DATE: January 21, 1997
                                              )     TIME: 9:00 a.m.
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A.           )     DEPT: 4
    BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K. )
    SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E. )
    BARBER, MARK JACKSON, AND                 )
    STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT                     ))
                   Defendants.                )
    __________________________________)
    
    
    
    
    / / /
    
    
    
    
                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • AILEEN L. ARRIETA, State Bar # 130868
  • California 94304-1050 Telephone:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
  • BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K.) SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E.)
  • THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER
  • Plaintiff Has Failed to Meet Section
  • Quantum Did Not Sell Stock During the
  • Class Period
  • Wheelwright Did Not Make Statements and
  • THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER CIVIL
  • PLAINTIFF'S SECTIONS 17200 AND 17500 CLAIMS FAIL BECAUSE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT
  • Practice Under the California Securities Laws.
  • conclusory allegations of fraud similar to those found here.
  • with respect to its claims under Business and Professions
  • Plaintiff Fails to Satisfy the Jurisdictional Requirements
  • The Limitations of Section 25008 Apply to
  • Mem.
  • requirements of Corporations Code Section 25008.
  • Plaintiff asserts that Section 25500 provides a remedy to "any
  • merely provides a remedy for a violation of Section 25400;
  • California residents and because "defendants' offers to sell stock,
  • means of misleading statements, that claim would be governed by
  • jurisdiction would discourage corporations from establishing their headquarters in this
  • Defendants Bornino, Barber, Jackson, and Wheelwright Did Not Make Statements and
  • abetting" liability for a violation of Section 25400.

  • 22 . MEMO IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DETERMINATION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    PLAINTIFF
    DEFENDANTS
    SUPERIOR COURT
    CLASS CERTIFICATION
    CALIFORNIA
    JUDICIAL ECONOMY
    DUPLICATION
    QUANTUM
    FORUM
    PARALLEL FEDERAL ACTION
    QUANTUM CORPORATION
    DISPUTE
    COUNSEL
    SINGLE FORUM
    APP
    FEDERAL COMPLAINT
    PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
    CONCENTRATING
    PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF
    SCHNEIDER
    ATTORNEYS
    SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS
    DISCOVERY
    MARK JACKSON
    WHEELWRIGHT
    SUPPORT CERTIFICATION
    STRONGLY FAVOR PROCEEDING
    LITIGATION
    CLASS MEMBERS
    
    
    
     BORIS FELDMAN, State Bar # 128838
    AILEEN L. ARRIETA, State Bar # 130868
    WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
    Professional Corporation
    650 Page Mill Road
    Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
    Telephone: (415) 493-9300
    
    Attorneys for Defendants
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A. BROWN,
    WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K. SOHN,
    GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E. BARBER,
    MARK JACKSON, AND STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT
    
    
    
                            SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
    
                                  COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
    
    
    HOWARD GUNTY PROFIT SHARING, On           )      CASE NO.: CV60370 [sic]
    Behalf of Itself and All Others           )
    Similarly Situated,                       )      MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
                                              )      AND AUTHORITIES IN
                   Plaintiff,                 )      SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
                                              )      MOTION FOR
             v.                               )      DETERMINATION THAT
                                              )      ACTION NOT PROCEED AS
    QUANTUM CORPORATION, MICHAEL A.           )      CLASS ACTION
    BROWN, WILLIAM F. ROACH, YOUNG K. )
    SOHN, GINA M. BORNINO, DEBORAH E. )              DATE: January 21, 1997
    BARBER, MARK JACKSON, AND                 )      TIME: 9:00 a.m.
    STEVEN C. WHEELWRIGHT,                    )      DEPT: 4
                                              )
                   Defendants.                )))
    __________________________________)
    
    
    
    
    / / /
    
    
    
    
    
    SNIPPETS:
  • Professional Corporation
  • California 94304-1050 Telephone:
  • Attorneys for Defendants
  • The Parallel Federal Action Weighs Heavily
  • The Interests of Judicial Economy Militate
  • Concentrating This Dispute In Federal Court
  • Would Not Prejudice Plaintiff or the Class
  • The Interests of Plaintiff's Counsel Do Not
  • Support Certification of a Class in This Case.
  • Defendants' Interests Strongly Favor Proceeding in a Single Forum.
  • The Public Interest Will Be Served By Denial of Class Certification.
  • Blue Chip Stamps v. Superior Court,
  • App.
  • This case is one of two securities class actions filed against
  • Quantum Corporation after its stock price dropped on June 12,
  • The landmark decision in Schneider v. Vennard,
  • Federal Complaint was served as of September 18,
  • Young K. Sohn, Gina M. Bornino, Deborah E. Barber, Mark Jackson,
  • and Steven C. Wheelwright ).
  • undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the
  • * the interests of potential class members and of the plaintiff;
  • Given the unequivocal duplication posed by the two
  • duplicative, burdensome, and costly discovery.

  • 23 . MEMO IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR DETERMINATION

    EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
    DEFENDANTS
    CLASS ACTION
    PLAINTIFF
    CALIFORNIA
    MOTION
    STATE LAW
    SUPERIOR COURT
    PROCEEDS
    DETERMINATION
    SECURITIES
    QUANTUM
    LAWRENCE
    PREMATURE
    SAN FRANCISCO
    APP
    OPPOSITION
    CLASS CERTIFICATION
    AUTHORITIES
    SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
    VIOLATIONS
    EXCHANGE ACT
    SANTA CLARA
    UNITED STATES
    STULL
    JULES BRODY
    SCHIFFRIN
    BALA PLAZA EAST
    MEMORANDUM
    PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    
    
    
    MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
         HYNES & LERACH LLP
    REED R. KATHREIN (139304)
    JEFFREY W. LAWRENCE (166806)
    JOHN K. GRANT (169813)
    222 Kearny Street, 10th Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94108
    Telephone: 415/288-4545
              - and -
    WILLIAM S. LERACH (68581)
    600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
    San Diego, CA 92101
    Telephone: 619/231-1058
    
    STULL, STULL & BRODY
    JULES BRODY
    6 East 45th Street
    4th Floor
    New York, NY 10017
    Telephone: 212/687-7230
    
    SCHIFFRIN & CRAIG, LTD.
    RICHARD S. SCHIFFRIN
    Three Bala Plaza East
    Suite 400
    Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
    Telephone: 610/667-7706
    
    Attorneys for Plaintiff
    
    
                       SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA