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


webMethods, Inc.
Summary: According to a Press Release dated December 3, 2001, the lawsuit asserts claims under Section 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 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to recover damages. The complaint alleges that webMethods and certain of its officers and directors at the time of its IPO violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling webMethods 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 allocated webMethods shares to customers at the IPO price of $35.00 per share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at $35.00, 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 webMethods stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as laddering) was intended to (and did) drive webMethods'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 webMethods stock at the $35.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $215.00 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 webMethods 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:  7372
Sector:  Technology
Industry: Software & Programming


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: webMethods, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: WEBM
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.webmethods.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Jack Kassin v. webMethods, Inc., et al.
 COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 21-MC-92 (SAS)
 JUDGE NAME: The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin
 DATE FILED: 12/03/2001  SOURCE: Business Wires
 CLASS PERIOD START: 02/10/2000  CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
  • Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
       500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, 10110
       (voice) 212.608.1900, (fax) 212.719.4677, info@lshllp.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  1


  • REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    In re Webmethods, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation
     COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 01 Civ. 10830 (Sas)
     JUDGE NAME: 
     DATE FILED: 04/19/2002  SOURCE: Business Wires
     CLASS PERIOD START: 02/10/2000  CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
     TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
     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
    Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 04/19/2002

    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