April 28, 2014 - The court ordered the authorization of the distribution of the net settlement fund.
May 23, 2013 - The court approved the settlement, entered the orders approving the plan of allocation, the motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

March 5, 2013 - The court preliminarily approved the settlement.

December 14, 2012 - The lead plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.

October 5, 2012 - Parties filed a stipulation of settlement.

June 16, 2011 - The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.

March 24, 2011 - The defendants filed motions to dismiss.

February 22, 2011 - The lead plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated complaint.

January 10, 2011 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted lead plaintiff leave to file and amended complaint.

September 20, 2010 - The defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

August 13, 2010 - The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. The lead plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Act of 1934.

July 14, 2010 - A new lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed.

June 14, 2010 - New lead plaintiff motions were filed.

May 12, 2010 - Defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

April 9, 2010 - The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of investors who purchased sTec Inc (NASDAQ: STEC) common shares between June 16, 2009 and February 23, 2010 and in connection with sTec Inc (NASDAQ: STEC) secondary public offering on August 11, 2009. The lead plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements between June 16, 2009 and February 23, 2010.

March 26, 2010 - Additional cases were consolidated.

February 8, 2010 - The lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed.

January 21, 2010 - All cases were consolidated.

January 5, 2010 - Lead plaintiff motions were filed.

November 6, 2009 - An investor in shares of sTec Inc (NASDAQ: STEC) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against sTec Inc over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that sTec Inc and certain of the company’s executive officers violated federal securities laws by knowing or recklessly disregarding between June 16, 2009 and November 3, 2009 materially false and misleading statements regarding sTec Inc ’s customers, its competitive position and its prospects. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued sTec Inc once had the solid-state drive market to itself. However, sTec Inc specifically failed to disclose looming threats of competition from other high technology companies, such that sTec Inc would not be the only company to gain design wins. Defendants assured investors that sTec Inc had no competition at that stage. The plaintiff alleges that sTec Inc falsely stated during June 16, 2009 and November 3, 2009 that its purported success was the result of the successful adaptation and use of sTec Inc 's Zeus IOPS products by EMC, IBM, or Sun Microsystems, when, in fact, IBM and Sun Microsystems were having significant difficulties integrating sTec Inc 's products. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, sTec Inc (NASDAQ: STEC) stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $41.84 per share on September 10, 2009. This inflated stock price permitted the top sTec Inc officers to sell 9 million shares of their sTec Inc tock in a secondary stock offering in August 2009.

On September 17, 2009, WedBush Morgan published an analyst report on sTec Inc stating that one of sTec Inc’s customers was in final qualification stages with one of sTec Inc’s competitors and that the company’s competitors would be gaining design wins much earlier than previously expected. As a result of this report, sTec Inc’s stock fell $6.37 per share to close at $31.53 per share on September 17, 2009 – a one-day decline of over 16%, on volume of more than 21.2 million shares. In addition the plaintiff alleges that between June 16, 2009 and November 3, 2009 sTec Inc failed to disclose that sTec Inc over sold its largest customer, ECM, more inventory than it required and thus overstated the demand for its ZeusIOPS SSD products such that its subsequent revenue and financial results for the following year would be materially negatively impacted. On November 3, 2009, after the market closed, sTec Inc reported its third quarter 2009 financial results and its fourth quarter 2009 outlook and announced that one of its largest customers – which accounts for 90 percent of sTec Inc's ZeusIOPS SSD business, and had placed a $120 million order for the second half of 2009 – would carry 2009 inventory into 2010, placing sTec Inc 's 2010 first quarter results at risk. As a result of this news, so the lawsuit, shares of sTec Inc (NASDAQ: STEC) declined $9.01 per share, or more than 38%, to close on November 4, 2009, at $14.14 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

sTec Inc, located in Santa Ana, California, designs, develops, manufactures and markets custom memory solutions based on flash memory and dynamic random access memory (DRAM) technologies. sTec Inc specializes in developing flash drives and memory cards used in sensitive and highly volatile environments and high-density DRAM modules. sTec Inc reported in 2007 Total Revenue of $188.65 million with a Net Income of $4.29 million and in 2008 Total Revenue of $227.44 million with a Net Income of $10.01 million. Those who are a current long term investor in shares of sTec Inc and/or purchased sTec Inc (NASDAQ: STEC) common stock between August 3, 2009 and November 3, 2009, should contact the Shareholders Foundation.