FTP Software, Inc. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

FTP Software, Inc. Summary: According to the docket, on February 3, 2000, the Court entered the Mandate of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, affirming the decision of the District Court.

In October 1996, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not met the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The motion was denied by the court on February 13, 1997. On February 13, 1998, FTP filed a motion for partial summary judgment and renewed motion to dismiss; plaintiffs filed their response on March 20, 1998. On September 29, 1998, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro, granting the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and also granting the renewed motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The case was closed, but the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 2, 1998.

The original class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming FTP, certain of its officers and two former officers as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants publicly issued false and misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts necessary to make such statements not false and misleading, which the plaintiffs contend caused an artificial inflation in the price of FTP's common stock. The lawsuit, which is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of FTP's common stock during the period from July 14, 1995 to January 3, 1996, alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. FTP has reviewed the allegations in the lawsuit, believes them to be without merit, and intends to defend itself and its officers vigorously. In order to support an adequate defense, FTP may be required to expend substantial sums for legal and expert fees and costs. The cost of defending the litigation and the outcome of the litigation are uncertain and cannot be estimated. If the lawsuit were determined adversely to FTP, FTP could be required to pay a substantial judgment.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	FTP Software, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	FTPS
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.ftp.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Greebel, et al. v. FTP Software, Inc., et al.

COURT: D. Massachusetts	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-10544
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Joseph L. Tauro
DATE FILED: 03/14/1996	SOURCE: Other
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/14/1995	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/03/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com Moulton & Gans LLP 133 Federal Street, Boston, MA, 2110 (voice) 617.369.7979, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/14/1996
Opinion: Memorandum
Type: Other		Date on the document: 08/15/1996

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Greebel, et al. v. FTP Software, Inc., et al.

COURT: D. Massachusetts	DOCKET NUMBER: 96-CV-10544
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Joseph L. Tauro
DATE FILED: 09/11/1996	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/14/1995	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/03/1996
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) , Moulton & Gans LLP 133 Federal Street, Boston, MA, 2110 (voice) 617.369.7979, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Opinion: Memorandum
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/24/1998
Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/07/2000

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Opinion
Case Name and/or Number: Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc., et al.
Type: Other		Date on the document: 11/28/1999

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�