Aspen Technology, Inc. - Securities Class Action

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

Aspen Technology, Inc. Conclusion: According the docket posted, on March 6, 2006, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment signed by U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro. The settlement was approved and the civil case was terminated.

As reported by the Company’s Form 10-Q For The Quarter Ended December 31, 2005, following mediation, on November 16, 2005, the Company and the plaintiffs on behalf of putative class members entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release of Securities Action which was filed with the court on the same date. On December 12, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement provided for in the stipulation and set a hearing date of March 6, 2006 to consider final approval of the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, a total of $5.6 million has been paid into a settlement fund by the Company and its insurance carrier. The settlement remains subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including final approval by the court. As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss the class action lawsuit with prejudice effective upon entry of final judgment after court approval.

According to the same SEC filing, in November 2004, two putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the United States District Court District of Massachusetts, captioned, respectively, Fener v. Aspen Technology, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 04-12375 (D. Mass.) (filed Nov. 9, 2004) and Stockmaster v. Aspen Technology, Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 04-12387 (D. Mass.) (filed Nov. 10, 2004). The class actions allege, among other things, that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with various statements about our financial condition for fiscal years 2000 through 2004. On February 2, 2005, the court consolidated the cases under the caption Aspen Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-12375 (D. Mass.), and appointed The Operating Engineers and Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund (Local 66) and City of Roseville Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff, purporting to represent a putative class of persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between January 25, 2000 and October 29, 2004. On August 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint containing allegations materially similar to the prior complaints and expanding the class action period.

The original complaint charges Aspen and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company inappropriately recognized revenues from certain software license and service agreements entered into with certain alliance partners and other customers during fiscal years 2000-2002; (2) that the Company's financial results were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

The complaint further alleges that on October 27, 2004, Aspen announced that its Audit Committee had undertaken a detailed review of the accounting for certain software license and service agreement transactions entered into with certain alliance partners and other customers during fiscal years 2000-2002. This news shocked the market. Shares of Aspen fell $.20 per share, or 2.91 percent, on October 28, 2004, to close at $6.68 per share. On October 29, 2004, Aspen said federal prosecutors had launched a probe into the software company's accounting practices from 2000 through 2002. On this news, Aspen's shares tumbled a further $.67 per share, or 10.03 percent, on October 29, 2004, to close at $6.01 per share.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7371
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Aspen Technology, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	AZPNE
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.aspentech.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Todd Fener, et al. v. Aspen Technology, Inc., et al.

COURT: D. Massachusetts	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-12375
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay
DATE FILED: 11/09/2004	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/08/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/29/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417 (voice) 303.861.3003, (fax) 800.711.6483, info@dyershuman.com Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202 (voice) 410.332.0030, (fax) , pivenlaw@erols.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@lerachlaw.com Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106 (voice) 800.797.5499, (fax) 860.493.6290, sn06106@AOL.com Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 75 State Street, Boston, MA, 02109 (voice) 617.439.3939, (fax) 617.439.0134, info@shulaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 7

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Securities Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/09/2004

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Aspen Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: D. Massachusetts	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-12375
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Joseph L. Tauro
DATE FILED: 08/26/2005	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/07/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 03/15/2005
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@lerachlaw.com Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 75 State Street, Boston, MA, 02109 (voice) 617.439.3939, (fax) 617.439.0134, info@shulaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/26/2005
Order and Final Judgment - Exhibit B
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/16/2005
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Providing For Notice And Scheduling Settlement Hearing - Exhibit A
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/16/2005
Stipulation And Agreement Of Compromise, Settlement And Release Of Securities Action
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 11/16/2005
Notice Of Proposed Settlement Of Class Action, Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Settlement Fairness Hearing
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 12/12/2005
Order and Final Judgment
Type: Order		Date on the document: 03/06/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 03/21/2006

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Rick Stockmaster
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/10/2004

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

�