In Re Valence Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation

Good Law
987 F. Supp. 796·1997 WL 757655
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 6, 1997C-95-20459-JWCalifornia3,307 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ware, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

This case concerns whether a magazine article about questionable business practices starts the running of the statute of limitations for a securities fraud action based on those same questionable business practices. On July 14,1997, Special Master Paul Valentine submitted a Recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ securities fraud claims are barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ objections to the Special Master’s Recommendation were heard by the Court on September 22, 1997. Patrick Coughlin appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs. Robert Feldman, Tower Snow, John Missing, and James Lico appeared on behalf of Defendants. Based upon all pleadings filed to date, as well as the comments of counsel at the hearing, and after de novo review, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

II. BACKGROUND

This is a securities class action suit brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Valence Technology, Inc. (“Valence” or the “Company”) between May 7, 1992 and August 10, 1994. Plaintiffs allege…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.