DoubleClick, 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

DoubleClick, Inc. Conclusion: In December 2006, the appellate court overturned the certification of classes in six test cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings. Because class certification was a condition of the settlement, it was unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval. On June 28, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement based upon a stipulation among the parties to the settlement.

According to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, in June 2003, DoubleClick’s Board of Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the court for preliminary approval. The court granted the preliminary approval motion on February 15, 2005, subject to certain modifications. If the parties are able to agree upon the required modifications, and such modifications are acceptable to the court, notice will be given to all class members of the settlement, a “fairness” hearing will be held and if the court determines that the settlement is fair to the class members, the settlement will be approved.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, in April 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint alleging violation of the federal securities laws in connection with DoubleClick’s follow-on offerings was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants DoubleClick, some of its officers and directors and certain underwriters of DoubleClick’s follow-on offerings. Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New York. In October 2002, the action was dismissed against the named officers and directors without prejudice. However, claims against DoubleClick remain. In July 2002, DoubleClick and the other issuers in the consolidated cases filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, which was denied as to DoubleClick in February 2003.

The original complaint against DoubleClick, Inc. alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement filed with the SEC on or about February 19, 1998, and the Prospectus filed on or about February 20, 1998 for the issuance and initial public offering of 3.5 million shares of DoubleClick common stock contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7319
Sector: Services
Industry: Advertising

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	DoubleClick, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	DCLK
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.doubleclick.net

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Brody, et al. v. DoubleClick, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-3980
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
DATE FILED: 05/10/2001	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/23/1998	CLASS PERIOD END: 05/02/2001
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
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: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re Doubleclick, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-3980
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 04/19/2002	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/11/1998	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 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: 6

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: 08/13/2003
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/28/2007

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

�