HYPERCOM CORP HYC (last ticker on record)
CIK 1045769Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- Restatement
- Restructuring
- Delisting notice (not a red flag)
These figures describe clients, not conduct. A lawyer or firm can serve many companies that later had trouble for reasons that have nothing to do with their work, and nothing here says any lawyer or firm did anything wrong.
- Red flags
- 2
- Newest began Jul 2007
- Largest fall in its shares
- —
- None of 95% on record
- Law firms
- 4
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 4
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Exit or disposal costs (Item 2.05)Form 8-K/A (opens in a new tab)
- Exit or disposal costs (Item 2.05)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Exit or disposal costs (Item 2.05)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Said its accounts could not be relied on (Item 4.02)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
An SEC release can name a company’s officer, or its stock as what a scheme sold or moved, so the company may be the victim. Each link goes to what to read.
Law firms
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Sullivan & CromwellFirst linked Aug 2011 · Named in a filing · 1,047 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.40× · Went dark 0.15× · 95% wipeout 0.69×
- DLA PiperFirst linked May 2008 · Named in SEC correspondence · 1,184 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.00× · Went dark 0.45× · 95% wipeout 1.20×
- Snell & WilmerFirst linked Sep 1997 · Named in SEC correspondence · 244 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.34× · Went dark 1.19× · 95% wipeout 1.38×
- Streich LangFirst linked Aug 2001 · Text search only · 17 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 2.02× · Went dark 1.15× · 95% wipeout 1.04×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sullivan & Cromwell | Aug 2011 | Named in a filing | 1,047 | 1.40 | 0.15 | 0.69 |
| DLA Piper | May 2008 | Named in SEC correspondence | 1,184 | 1.00 | 0.45 | 1.20 |
| Snell & Wilmer | Sep 1997 | Named in SEC correspondence | 244 | 1.34 | 1.19 | 1.38 |
| Streich Lang | Aug 2001 | Text search only | 17 | 2.02 | 1.15 | 1.04 |
Lawyers
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Sarah P. PayneSullivan & CromwellFirst linked Aug 2011 · Named in a filing · 25 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.87× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.42×
- Scott D. MillerSullivan & CromwellFirst linked Aug 2011 · Named in a filing · 47 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 2.40× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.30×
- Steven D. PidgeonDLA PiperFirst linked Sep 1997 · Named in SEC correspondence · 42 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.90× · Went dark 0.90× · 95% wipeout 1.08×
- David P. LewisDLA PiperFirst linked Jul 2008 · Text search only · 19 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.76× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.88×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sarah P. PayneSullivan & Cromwell | Aug 2011 | Named in a filing | 25 | 0.87 | 0.00 | 0.42 |
| Scott D. MillerSullivan & Cromwell | Aug 2011 | Named in a filing | 47 | 2.40 | 0.00 | 1.30 |
| Steven D. PidgeonDLA Piper | Sep 1997 | Named in SEC correspondence | 42 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 1.08 |
| David P. LewisDLA Piper | Jul 2008 | Text search only | 19 | 0.76 | 0.00 | 0.88 |