Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. : GoTo.com, Inc.

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

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. : GoTo.com, Inc. Conclusion: On September 5, 2007, the Court issued the Opinion and Order No. 95140. According to the Order, U.S. District Judge John F. Keenan certified the class action, approved the settlement, approved the Plan of Allocation and finalized the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. On September 19, 2007, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment for In re Merrill Lynch Research Reports Securities Litigation, 02 MDL 1484.

According to the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Actions, dated March 19, 2007, for In re Merrill Lynch Research Reports Securities Litigation, 02 MDL 1484, this case, In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. GoTo.Com Research Reports Securities Litigation, 02-CV-3835, is part of a proposed settlement of $125 million in cash. A settlement hearing will be held before the Honorable John F. Keenan, United States District Judge of the Southern District of New York to determine whether the settlement should be approved.

On December 23, 2002, the Court entered the Case Management Order #1. According to the Order, the actions filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of GoTo.com were consolidated and now carried out under In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. GoTo.Com Research Reports Securities Litigation, 02-CV-3835 (MP). On March 14, 2003, and December 10, 2003, an Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint were filed respectively. On June 2, 2006, the Court entered the Minute Order signed by Judge Michael B. Mukasey administratively closing the case pursuant to Memorandum from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts dated June 15th, 1973.

In October 2002, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Merrill Lynch Defendants’ motion to transfer all such cases to the Southern District of New York for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The cases were transferred to the Honorable Milton Pollack, Senior United States District Judge, and were coordinated under the caption In re Merrill Lynch Research Reports Securities Litigation, 02 MDL 1484.

The Complaint alleges that in an effort to obtain investment banking business from GoTo, defendants issued positive ratings on the Company which were materially misleading as they were inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private adverse assessments of GoTo. For example, the very day of the initiation of coverage, Blodget admitted in an e-mail that there was "nothing" interesting about GoTo except banking fees. The complaint also describes how defendants made their proposed rating for GoTo more palatable to GoTo management by downgrading a GoTo competitor. However, when defendants learned that GoTo had awarded its underwriting business to another bank, defendants downgraded GoTo in retribution. On April 8, 2002, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced that a ten-month investigation had revealed that Merrill Lynch's "supposedly independent and objective investment advice was tainted and biased by the desire to aid Merrill Lynch's investment banking business." Merrill Lynch's ratings on GoTo were among those challenged by the Attorney General.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7389
Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	GoTo.com, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	GOTO
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.overture.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Parker, et al. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 02-CV-3835
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Milton Pollack
DATE FILED: 05/20/2002	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/11/2001	CLASS PERIOD END: 06/06/2001
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860, Seattle, WA, 98014 (voice) 206.521.0080, (fax) 206.521.0166, lawinfo@cmht.com Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (former New York, NY) 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.687.1980, (fax) 212.687.7714, info@kaplanfox.com Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (New York) 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516ven (voice) 212.661.1100, (fax) 212.661.8665, info@pomerantzlaw.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Federal Securities Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 05/20/2002

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. GoTo.Com Research Reports Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 02-CV-3835
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Milton Pollack
DATE FILED: 12/10/2003	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/11/2001	CLASS PERIOD END: 06/06/2001
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (New York) 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516ven (voice) 212.661.1100, (fax) 212.661.8665, info@pomerantzlaw.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/19/2007

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint For Violation Of Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Myers, et al. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/05/2002
Case Management Order #3
Case Name and/or Number: In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/05/2003

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

�