Altris Software - 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

Altris Software Conclusion: According to the docket dated July 26, 2002, on October 2, 2000, U.S. District Judge Thomas J. Whelan granted defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice. A Notice of Appeal was later filed by the plaintiff, and on July 2, 2002, the Court entered the certified copy of the judgment from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the decision of the District Court.

In the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999, on July 30, 1999, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California approved the settlement of certain securities class action lawsuits against the Company and dismissed the lawsuits with prejudice. The settlement provides for the dismissal and release of all claims in these cases in exchange for (a) payment of $2,500,000 by the Company's insurance carrier to the class of plaintiffs, (b) issuance by the Company of 2,304,271 shares of its common stock to the plaintiffs, which is equal to twenty percent of the sum of (i) the number of shares of common stock currently outstanding and (ii) the maximum number of shares issuable upon conversion of the Series E Preferred Stock, and (c) cooperation by the Company with plaintiffs' counsel by providing certain documents and information regarding the claims asserted in the class actions.

The original Complaint alleges that defendants publicly touted the Company's financial growth and its record revenues, while failing to disclose numerous accounting irregularities that caused the Company to substantially overstate its earnings for the years 1996 and 1997. Plaintiff alleges that Altris failed to recognize revenue in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and that Altris inflated reported income by maintaining inadequate reserves for bad debts. Plaintiff also alleges that Altris failed to disclose the inadequancy of its system of internal controls, which prevented proper reporting of income and revenues. As a result of the defendants' material misstatements and omissions, plaintiff and the other members of the Class purchased shares of Altris at artificially inflated prices as high as $10 per share, which they would not have done had they known the Company's true financial condition.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7371
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Altris Software
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	ALTS
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.altris.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Reiger, et al. v. Altris Software Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-00528
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Edward J. Schwartz
DATE FILED: 03/16/1998	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/17/1996	CLASS PERIOD END: 03/11/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Westfield, NJ) 220 St. Paul Street, Westfield, NJ, 07090 (voice) 908.928.1700, (fax) 908.301.9008, blbg@blbglaw.com 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 Spector, Roseman, & Kodroff (San Diego) 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.338.4514, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/16/1998
Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/06/1999

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Reiger, et al. v. Altris Software Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-00528
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Napoleon A. Jones
DATE FILED: 08/30/1999	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/26/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 03/11/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Westfield, NJ) 220 St. Paul Street, Westfield, NJ, 07090 (voice) 908.928.1700, (fax) 908.301.9008, blbg@blbglaw.com 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 Spector, Roseman, & Kodroff (San Diego) 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619.338.4514, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws and the California Corporations Code
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 10/29/1998
Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
Type: Order		Date on the document: 07/30/1999
Second Amended Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/30/1999
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 07/26/2002

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

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

�