Ariba, 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

Ariba, Inc. Conclusion: According to the Company’s FORM 10-K For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, in June 2005, the underwriters filed an appeal of the District Court’s order granting class certification in six focus cases. On December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion, reversing the District Court’s order granting class certification and finding that plaintiffs cannot satisfy certain elements required for class actions. On June 25, 2007, in light of the Court of Appeals’ decision, the District Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement based on a stipulation among the parties to the settlement. On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the focus cases, seeking to address the deficiencies raised in the Court of Appeals’ opinion. On September 27, 2007, plaintiffs moved to certify the classes in those focus cases. The parties are currently discussing further discovery that the plaintiffs seek from the underwriters and the issuers.

As summarized by the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006 , in 2001, a number of purported shareholder class action complaints related to the Company’s and FreeMarkets’ initial public offerings (the “IPOs”) were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and FreeMarkets, and against certain of the two companies’ former officers and directors. These complaints were later consolidated into single class action proceedings related to each IPO. In June 2003, a settlement was reached between plaintiffs and the Company and FreeMarkets (the individual defendants having been previously dismissed). A final fairness hearing on the settlement was held on April 24, 2006 but the Court has not yet issued its opinion. As part of the proposed settlement, the settling issuers were required to assign to the plaintiffs certain claims they had against their underwriters (“Assigned Claims”). Pending the Court’s final approval of the settlement, the Assigned Claims were conditionally assigned to a litigation trustee. Before the expiration of any relevant statutes of limitations, the litigation trustee filed lawsuits against the various issuers’ respective underwriters alleging the Assigned Claims. On February 24, 2006, the Court dismissed, with prejudice, the Assigned Claims brought by the litigation trustee against the underwriters on statute of limitations grounds. Because the Assigned Claims were part of the consideration contemplated under the settlement, it is unclear how the Court’s recent decision will impact the settlement and the Court’s final approval of it. Although the Court has preliminarily approved the settlement, there can be no assurance that the Court will provide final approval of the settlement.

The original complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. On 06/23/1999, Ariba commenced an IPO of 5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $23 per share. Coincidentally, Ariba also filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) Morgan Stanley had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Morgan Stanley allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Ariba shares issued in connection with the Ariba IPO; and (ii) Morgan Stanley had entered into agreements with customers whereby Morgan Stanley agreed to allocate Ariba shares to those customers in the Ariba IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Ariba shares in the aftermarket at a pre-determined prices.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Ariba, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	ARBA
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.ariba.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Glenn Luksik, et al. v. Ariba, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-2359
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Richard Owen
DATE FILED: 03/20/2001	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/23/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/23/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY) 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 800.217.1522, (fax) , info@bernlieb.com Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 335 Central Avenue, Lawrence, NY, 11559 (voice) 516.374.0707, (fax) 516.295.3473, securitiesfraud@comcast.net Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, 10110 (voice) 212.608.1900, (fax) 212.719.4677, info@lshllp.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 Sirota & Sirota LLP 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005 (voice) 888.759.2990, (fax) 212.425.9093, Info@SirotaLaw.com Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 6

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Demand For Jury Trial for Violation of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/20/2001

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re Ariba, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-2359
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 04/19/2002	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/23/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY) 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 800.217.1522, (fax) , info@bernlieb.com Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York) One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) 212.868.1229, info@milbergweiss.com Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) , Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Sirota & Sirota LLP 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005 (voice) 888.759.2990, (fax) 212.425.9093, Info@SirotaLaw.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 Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 7

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/19/2002
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/30/2004
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/27/2007

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

�