MAD CATZ INTERACTIVE INC MCZ (last ticker on record)
CIK 1088162Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- Restructuring
- Delisting notice (not a red flag)
- Bankruptcy
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 Mar 2017
- Largest fall in its shares
- —
- None of 95% on record
- Law firms
- 5
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 2
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- Bankruptcy or receivership (Item 1.03)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Debt accelerated (Item 2.04)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- 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)
- 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 (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)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.
- McMillan LLPFirst linked May 2011 · Named in a filing · 95 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.06× · Went dark 1.73× · 95% wipeout 0.92×
- Durham Jones & PinegarFirst linked Oct 2004 · Named in SEC correspondence · 47 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.70× · Went dark 1.06× · 95% wipeout 1.40×
- Lang Michener LLPFirst linked Oct 2004 · Named in SEC correspondence · 90 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.14× · Went dark 1.17× · 95% wipeout 1.01×
- Latham & Watkins LLPFirst linked Mar 2003 · Named in a filing · 2,667 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.98× · Went dark 0.31× · 95% wipeout 1.10×
- Stradling Yocca Carlson & RauthFirst linked Sep 2014 · Text search only · 165 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.18× · Went dark 1.37× · 95% wipeout 1.37×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McMillan LLP | May 2011 | Named in a filing | 95 | 1.06 | 1.73 | 0.92 |
| Durham Jones & Pinegar | Oct 2004 | Named in SEC correspondence | 47 | 1.70 | 1.06 | 1.40 |
| Lang Michener LLP | Oct 2004 | Named in SEC correspondence | 90 | 1.14 | 1.17 | 1.01 |
| Latham & Watkins LLP | Mar 2003 | Named in a filing | 2,667 | 0.98 | 0.31 | 1.10 |
| Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth | Sep 2014 | Text search only | 165 | 1.18 | 1.37 | 1.37 |
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.
- Wayne D. SwanDurham Jones & PinegarFirst linked Oct 2004 · Named in SEC correspondence · 12 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 2.38× · Went dark 1.26× · 95% wipeout 1.22×
- Joshua E. LittleDurham Jones & PinegarFirst linked Mar 2003 · Named in SEC correspondence · 9 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.00× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.95×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wayne D. SwanDurham Jones & Pinegar | Oct 2004 | Named in SEC correspondence | 12 | 2.38 | 1.26 | 1.22 |
| Joshua E. LittleDurham Jones & Pinegar | Mar 2003 | Named in SEC correspondence | 9 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.95 |