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 to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, on September 6, 2006, the Company also announced that, in connection with the preparation of financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, a subcommittee of independent directors was appointed to review the Company’s accounting treatment for stock option grants for prior years. Following that announcement, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named defendants in a purported federal securities class action lawsuits filed in Massachusetts federal district court, alleging violations of the Exchange Act and claiming material misstatements concerning its financial condition and results. In response to the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the parties stipulated to voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice on September 26, 2006 without any payment by the Company.

The complaint alleges that Aspen Tech and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the backdating of the grant of stock options to management, and the falsification of its financial statements for the years 2002-2005 and the first three quarters of 2006. The Company had been previously forced to restate its financial statements for the years 2002-2004 in 2005, and the investing public was led to understand such accounting issues were resolved. The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only potentially lines the pockets of the executives, but here resulted in the overstatement of Aspen Tech's earnings between 2002 and 2005, and the under-booking of compensation expenses. Under accounting rules, back-dating an option grant is deemed the payment of additional compensation and must be accounted for as an expense, which Aspen Tech failed to do.

The complaint further alleges that on or around September 6, 2006, the defendants shocked the market by announcing that the Company would be forced to restate its financial statements to correct for the backdating of stock options, by booking approximately $31 million of additional compensation charges. On this news the Company's share prices declined substantially on greatly increased share volume.

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

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Aspen Technology Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	AZPN
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.aspentec.com/

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Laurence Paskowitz, et al. v. Aspen Technology Inc., et al.

COURT: D. Massachusetts	DOCKET NUMBER: 06-CV-11616
JUDGE NAME: Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr.
DATE FILED: 09/08/2006	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/06/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 09/06/2006
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212-889-3700, (fax) 212-684-519, info@abbeyspanier.com Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA) One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 02109 (voice) 617.542.8300, (fax) , Roy Jacobs & Associates 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000 , New York, NY, 10118 (voice) , (fax) , classattorney@pipeline.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 09/08/2006
Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/26/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/27/2006

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

�