Company and Case Information

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


MicroStrategy Inc.
Conclusion: The original complaint charges MicroStrategy and certain individuals with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of l934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that MicroStrategy and certain of its officers and directors reported materially false and misleading financial results throughout the Class Period. During l998 and l999, defendants overstated MicroStrategy's revenues and earnings by improperly recognizing revenue in connection with software sales/service contracts. On March 20, 2000, MicroStrategy admitted that its 1999 and 1998 revenues and operating results had been false due to improper timing of revenue recognition. The Company announced that it must restate its revenues for both fiscal years, which will substantially reduce is 1999 and 1998 results. The Company stated that it will reduce its l999 reported revenue from $205.3 million to between approximately $150 million and $155 million, and its results of operations from diluted net income per share of $0.15 to a diluted loss per share of between approximately $(0.43) and $(0.51). It will also reduce its reported revenues for l998 from $106.4 million to between approximately $95.9 million and $100.9 million and its results of operations from diluted net income per share of $0.08 to diluted net income per share of between approximately $0.04 and $0.01.

By Order dated June 6, 2000, the Court consolidated for all purposes the actions into this Action pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

By Order dated June 27, 2000, the Court (i) granted the motion of Akiko and Atsukuni Minami and Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund to be appointed Lead Plaintiffs, and (ii) designated the law firms Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, and Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP as Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel.

A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on July 7, 2000, naming MicroStrategy, certain of its officers and directors, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as defendants. The amended class action complaint alleges claims under section 10(b), section 20(a) and section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended class action complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.

By Order dated August 10, 2000, as subsequently amended on August 25, 2000, the Court (i) conditionally certified the Action to proceed as a class action.

By Order dated September 15, 2000, the Court denied the Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Complaint, with the exception that the Court dismissed a claim that Defendant Frank A. Ingari is liable under Section 20A of the Exchange Act, leaving Defendant Stephen S. Trundle as the sole Defendant against whom such claim remains.

According to the Forms 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001 and for 2002, on October 23, 2000, MicroStrategy Inc., its officers and directors named as defendants, and plaintiffs' counsel entered into a settlement agreement in the consolidated class action. Under the settlement agreement, class members will receive: (1) five-year unsecured subordinated promissory notes issued by MicroStrategy having an aggregate principal amount of $80.5 million and bearing interest at 7.5% per year; (2) 2,777,778 shares of MicroStrategy class A common stock; and (3) warrants to purchase 1,900,000 shares of class A common stock at an exercise price of $40 per share with the warrants expiring five years from the date they are issued. The district court approved the settlement on April 2, 2001.

On May 21, 2001, a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle claims with remaining defendant PricewaterhouseCooper. On July 24, 2001, the settlement in the amount of $55 million was approved.

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


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: MicroStrategy Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: MSTR
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.microstrategy.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Dominic Castaldo, et al. v. Microstrategy, Inc., et al.
 COURT: E.D. Virginia  DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-00473
 JUDGE NAME: T.S. Ellis III
 DATE FILED: 03/20/2000  SOURCE: Complaint
 CLASS PERIOD START: 06/11/1998  CLASS PERIOD END: 03/20/2000
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Alfred G. Yates, Jr.
      429 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh , PA, 15219
       (voice) 412.391.5164, (fax) ,
  • Berger & Montague PC
      1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103
       (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net
  • Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA)
      701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860, Seattle, WA, 98014
       (voice) 206.521.0080, (fax) 206.521.0166, lawinfo@cmht.com
  • Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
      501 West Broadway, Suit 1250, San Diego, CA, 92101
       (voice) 877.493.5366, (fax) 619.238.5425,
  • Rabin & Peckel LLP
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY, 10016
       (voice) 212.682.1818, (fax) 212.682.1892, email@rabinlaw.com
  • Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103
       (voice) 215.496.0300, (fax) 215.496.6611,
  • Wolf Popper, LLP
      845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022-6689Ave
       (voice) 877.370.7703, (fax) 212.486.2093, IRRep@wolfpopper.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  7

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 10/18/2000

    REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    In re Microstrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation
     COURT: E.D. Virginia  DOCKET NUMBER: 00-CV-00473
     JUDGE NAME: 
     DATE FILED: 07/07/2001  SOURCE: Business Wires
     CLASS PERIOD START: 06/11/1998  CLASS PERIOD END: 03/20/2000
     TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
     PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY)
      1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, New York, NY, 10019
       (voice) 212.554.1400, (fax) 212.554.1444, blbg@blbglaw.com
  • Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
      One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065
       (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) ,
  • Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
      270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016
       (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  3

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 07/07/2000
    Stipulation Of Settlement
    Type: Other Date on the document: 01/11/2001
    Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action And Partial Settlement
    Type: Notice Date on the document: 01/26/2001
    Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action And Partial Settlement (PDF Version)
    Type: Notice Date on the document: 01/26/2001
    Notice of Settlement of Class Action with Respect to Remaining Defendant Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP
    Type: Settlement Date on the document: 06/01/2001
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 01/06/2005

     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