Anderson

Anderson v. Clow

Good Law
82 F.3d 1480·96 Daily Journal DAR 5283·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10340·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3200
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 7, 1996No. 94-56232California5,357 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nelson, J.

OVERVIEW

Timothy J. Anderson and other class representatives (collectively “Anderson”) who purchased stock in Stae Electronics (“Stae”) between May 7 and July 20, 1992, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their class action under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77o, and Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78t. Anderson alleges that Stac, certain of its officers and directors, and its lead underwriters, Alex. Brown & Sons, Inc., and Montgomery Securities (“Alex. Brown” and “Montgomery,” respectively; collectively, “Underwriters”), made material misrepresentations or omissions regarding Stac’s initial public offering (“IPO”) of May 7, 1992. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This ease arises from Stac’s May 7, 1992, IPO of stock in its computer products company. Stac’s most prominent product is the “Stacker,” a data-compressing device which doubles storage capacity of disk drives in computers using Microsoft’s MS-DOS and compatible systems.

The district court related the following facts, which are not disputed by the parties:

In…

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.