Red Hat, 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

Red Hat, Inc. Conclusion: According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2007, a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement was held on April 24, 2006. On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the District Court’s class certification with respect to the focus cases and remanded the matter for further consideration. As a result, all matters in the case, including any settlement proposal, await determination of whether a newly defined class can meet with the approval of the Court. If a newly defined class is approved, new settlement discussions are likely to occur.

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2006, on August 8, 2001, Chief Judge Michael Mukasey of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order that transferred all of the so-called IPO allocation actions, including the complaints involving the Company, to one judge for coordinated pre-trial proceedings (Case No. 21 MC 92). The court has consolidated the actions into a single action. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing registration statements and prospectuses that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. Plaintiffs also challenge certain IPO allocation practices by underwriters and the lack of disclosure thereof in initial public offering documents. On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each of the 310 consolidated actions, including the Red Hat action. The relief sought consists of unspecified damages. No discovery has occurred to date. The individual director and officer defendants have been dismissed from the case without prejudice. The Company believes these complaints are without merit and will defend itself vigorously in this matter. There can be no assurance, however, that this matter will be resolved in the Company’s favor. The Company, among other issuers, the plaintiffs, and the insurers, have agreed, in concept, to a proposed settlement whereby the Company would be released from this litigation without further payment from the Company. That proposed settlement has been submitted to the court for its consideration, and the court has accepted the proposed settlement subject to certain amendments. A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement was held on April 24, 2006.

The original complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On August 11, 1999, Red Hat commenced an initial public offering of 6 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $14 per share (the "Red Hat IPO"). In connection therewith, Red Hat filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus (the "Prospectus"), with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Red Hat shares issued in connection with the Red Hat IPO; and (ii) Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse had entered into agreements with customers whereby Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse agreed to allocate Red Hat shares to those customers in the Red Hat IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Red Hat shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. As alleged in the complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public offerings.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7370
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Red Hat, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	RHAT
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.redhat.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Saul A. Kassin, et al. v. Red Hat, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-2712
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Laura T. Swain
DATE FILED: 03/29/2001	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/11/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 05/25/2000
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 Bull & Lifshitz 18 East 41st St., New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 212.213.6222, (fax) 212.213.9405, 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 Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. , Philadelphia, PA, (voice) 800.993.3233, (fax) , sfprpc@op.net Wechsler Harwood LLP 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.935.7400, (fax) , info@whhf.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 6

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re Red Hat, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-2712
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 04/19/2002	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/11/1999	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: 06/28/2007

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Barbara Eiseman, et al. v. Red Hat, Inc.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/03/2001

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

�