Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

In re Stac Electronics Securities Litigation

89 F.3d 1399 (1996)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

In re Stac Electronics Securities Litigation

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

89 F.3d 1399 (1996)

Facts

Stac Electronics (Stac) (defendant) made data-compressing products. Stac experienced mixed sales results from year to year, sometimes reporting net losses and other times reporting increased revenues. Stac decided to go public through an initial public offering (IPO). During the lead-up to the IPO, Stac prepared a prospectus, which included several pages warning investors of risk factors, including the fact that Stac faced competition from other companies like Microsoft. The risk factors indicated that Stac’s competitors could produce similar data-compressing products, which would increase competition and could lower Stac’s revenues in the future. In addition, Stac completed public presentations concerning its IPO, issued press reports, and communicated to investment analysts. All of these efforts portrayed Stac as a good investment. Although Stac’s stock prices initially rose after the IPO, they began dropping a short time later after another software company announced its own poor financial results. Stac’s stock ultimately declined to prices well below the IPO price. Timothy Anderson (plaintiff) sued Stac on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who had purchased shares of Stac’s stock in connection with the IPO. The suit claimed that Stac was aware, but did not adequately disclose, that its competitor Microsoft was planning to introduce an improved data-compressing product that would compete with Stac. Anderson alleged that Stac’s nondisclosure represented a material misrepresentation in violation of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5. The lower court dismissed the suit, finding that Stac had adequately warned potential investors of the risks of investment. Anderson appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Nelson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership