 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
TheStreet.com, Inc. Conclusion: Other actions have been filed making similar allegations regarding the IPOs of more than 300 other companies. All of these have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-92.
According to a Press Release dated December 5, 2001 a complaint was filed asserting claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint alleges that TheStreet.com, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors at the time of its IPO violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling TheStreet.com common stock pursuant to the initial public offering without disclosing to investors that several of the underwriters of the IPO had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, defendants The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Chase H&Q (formerly Hambrecht & Quist LLC), Thomas Weisel Partners LLC, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated allocated TheStreet.com shares to customers at the IPO price of $19.00 per share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at $19.00, the defendant underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The requirement that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the price of TheStreet.com stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive TheStreet.com's share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both the defendant underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying TheStreet.com stock at the $19.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $71.25 during its first day of trading. Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their customers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions. These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his or her IPO stock allocation. The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory approval for the TheStreet.com offering contained material misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed above.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7375
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | TheStreet.com, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | TSCM |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.thestreet.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Abraham Kassin, et al. v. TheStreet.com, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In re Thestreet.Com, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| 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: 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