Ascendant Solutions, Inc. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Litigation Activity Indices

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Ascendant Solutions, Inc. Conclusion: As reported by the Company’s FORM 10-K For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2005, the Company settled the lead plaintiffs’ remaining individual claims for a confidential amount, which was paid by the Company’s directors' and officers' insurance carrier. Accordingly, the district court entered a final judgment dismissing the claims with prejudice on February 24, 2006.

According to a press release dated September 15, 2005, finding that a pleading of fraud-on-the-market did not support class certification in the absence of evidence showing market efficiency, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's denial of class certification in a putative class action against an electronic-order processing company. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for certification, finding that in the absence of expert testimony regarding market efficiency, they could not take advantage of the class-wide reliance provided by the fraud-on-the-market theory (see 2 S.Cl.Act.Rep. 13-15, Aug. 15, 2004). Certification requires more than pleading fraud- on-the-market.

As previously reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q/A For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2005, in April 2001, the Court consolidated the lawsuits, and on July 26, 2002, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”). The Company filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on or about September 9, 2002. On July 22, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. On September 2, 2003, defendants filed an answer to the CAC. Plaintiffs then commenced discovery. On September 12, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and on February 17, 2004, the Company filed its opposition. On July 1, 2004, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for certification. On September 8, 2004, the Fifth Circuit granted plaintiffs’ petition for permission to appeal the denial of class certification. Briefing on the appeal is complete, and oral argument has been set for June 6, 2005.

The original complaint asserts that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint also alleges that the statements made in the Prospectus for ASD's IPO that ASD had a well-developed business model and was providing high quality and comprehensive outsourcing services to companies selling their goods over the Internet were materially false or misleading.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7389
Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Ascendant Solutions, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	ASDS
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.ascendantsolutions.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Bell, et al. v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc., et al.

COURT: N.D. Texas	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-166
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Jorge A. Solis
DATE FILED: 01/23/2001	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/11/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/24/2000
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Jeffrey S. Abraham 60 East 42nd St - Suite 4700, New York, NY, 10165 (voice) 212.692.0555, (fax) , Puls Taylor & Woodson 512 Main Street - 14th Floor, Fort Worthtre, TX, 76102 (voice) 817.338.1717, (fax) , Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY) The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126 (voice) 212.682.3025, (fax) 212.682.3010, info@wyca.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint Class Action - Plaintiff Demands a Trial by Jury
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/23/2001
Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/27/2001

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Ascendant Solutions, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: N.D. Texas	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-166
JUDGE NAME: Hon. David C. Godbey
DATE FILED: 07/26/2002	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/11/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/24/2000
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Abbey Gardy, LLP 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.889.3700, (fax) , info@abbeygardy.com Brodsky & Smith, LLC 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.668.7987., (fax) 610.660.0450, esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP 11311 Arcade Drive - Suite 201, Little Rock, AR, 72212 (voice) 501.312.8500, (fax) , Claxton & Hill 3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103, Dallas, TX, 75204-2471ney (voice) 214.969.9099, (fax) , Puls Taylor & Woodson 512 Main Street - 14th Floor, Fort Worthtre, TX, 76102 (voice) 817.338.1717, (fax) , Rabin & Peckel LLP 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.682.1818, (fax) 212.682.1892, email@rabinlaw.com Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia) 1818 Market Street; Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 215.496.0300, (fax) 215.496.6610, classaction@srk-law.com Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com Wechsler, Harwood, Halebian & Feffer, LLP 488 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, (voice) 212.935.7400, (fax) 10022, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY) The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126 (voice) 212.682.3025, (fax) 212.682.3010, info@wyca.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 11

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/26/2002
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 07/01/2004
Agreed Final Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 02/27/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/27/2006

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Elliott v. Ascendant Solutions, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/27/2001
Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Ricker v. Ascendant Solutions, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/27/2001
Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Hoffman, et al. v. Ascendant Solutions, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/08/2001
Docket
Case Name and/or Number: McGuire v. Ascendant Solutions, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/12/2001
Judgment
Case Name and/or Number: Bell, et al. v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc., et al.
Type: Other		Date on the document: 11/07/2005

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

�