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


Caldera International, Inc.
Summary: According to The SCO Group Inc.’s (formerly Caldera International) FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2006, the Company is an issuer defendant in a series of class action lawsuits involving over 300 issuers that have been consolidated under In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS). The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, certain improprieties regarding the underwriters’ conduct during the Company’s initial public offering and the failure to disclose such conduct in the registration statement in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The plaintiffs, the issuers and the insurance companies have negotiated an agreement to settle the dispute between the plaintiffs and the issuers. All parties, including the plaintiffs, issuers and insurance companies, have executed this settlement agreement and the settlement agreement has been submitted to the court for approval. If the settlement agreement is approved by the court, and if no cross-claims, counterclaims or third-party claims are later asserted, this action will be dismissed with respect to the Company and its directors. The Company has notified its underwriters and insurance companies of the existence of the claims. Management believes, after consultation with legal counsel, that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial position and will not exceed the $200,000 self-insured retention already paid or accrued by the Company.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus (the "Prospectus") that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Caldera shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Caldera shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

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


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Caldera International, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: CALD
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.calderasystems.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Eddison Andrews, et al. v. Caldera International, Inc., et al.
 COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-06271
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
 DATE FILED: 07/11/2001  SOURCE: Business Wires
 CLASS PERIOD START: 03/21/2000  CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
  • Beatie & Osborne LLP
      599 Lexington Avenue, 42nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022
       (voice) 212.888.9000, (fax) 212.888.9664,
  • 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
  • Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
      6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017
       (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  3

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Type:  Date on the document: 

    REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    In Re Caldera Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation
     COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 01-CV-06271
     JUDGE NAME: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
     DATE FILED: 04/19/2002  SOURCE: Business Wires
     CLASS PERIOD START: 03/20/2000  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: 01/20/2005

     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