 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Openwave Systems Inc. Summary: On November 5, 2008, an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement And Setting Settlement Hearing was filed by the parties in order to settle all claims against the defendants.
According to a press release dated September 17, 2008, Openwave Systems reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action lawsuit filed against the company, according to the company's Sept. 15 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Initially, between Feb. 21 and March 27, 2007, four substantially similar securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Openwave and four current and former officers of the company.
On August 10, 2007, a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint was filed by J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., and Thomas Weisel Partners LLC. At the same time, a motion to dismiss was filed by KPMG LLP and was followed by several different motions to dismiss. In addition, a stipulation and Order was entered on August 31, 2007 by setting the page limits to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court finally granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and entered its Order on October 31, 2007. However, a stipulation and Order was entered on November 19, 2007 in regards to the extension of time to answer the complaint. On December 19, 2007, a pretrial scheduling order was entered and the times and dates have been set. Furthermore, another pretrial Order was entered on May 14, 2008. Lastly, on June 03, 2008, an endorsed stipulated protective Order was entered in regards to the procedures of the handling of confidential material.
According to a press release dated November 06, 2007, a federal judge permitted a shareholder lawsuit to go forward against Openwave Systems and nine former executives in an alleged stock-option backdating scheme. The defendants include two former chief financial officers and two former CEOs. In an opinion dated Oct. 31, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote denied the defendants' request to throw out the case, according to wire service reports.
On August 3, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Correct Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint. The defendants filed various motions to dismiss which are currently pending before the Court.
On May 30, 2007, the Court entered the Case Management Order signed by U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote. Several actions are now consolidated under In re Openwave Systems Securities Litigation, Master File 07cv1309. The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System is appointed lead plaintiff; Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP shall serve as lead counsel for all plaintiffs in the consolidated actions and the class.
The complaint charges Openwave and certain of its officers with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that in 2000 and 2001, the senior executives of Openwave caused the Company to grant to its executives and certain other employees of the Company stock options that improperly had exercise prices below the market price of Openwave stock on the actual date of grant. The Company and the Individual Defendants (defined below) failed to disclose this fact, and instead issued numerous false and misleading public statements misrepresenting the Company's financial statements, including its accumulated deficit, in violation of generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). When these improper grants and the improper accounting concealing them were finally revealed to the public, the price of Openwave stock declined dramatically, causing substantial damages to investors.
The complaint further alleges that on or around December 1, 2006, the Company issued a press release and filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006 (the "2006 10-K") disclosing, for the first time, that its previously reported financial results were inaccurate and were being restated. Specifically, the Company increased its accumulated deficit by $182 million to correct for option expenses that were improperly under-reported between 2001 and 2005.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Openwave Systems Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | OPWV |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.openwave.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Fred Garfield, et al. v. Openwave Systems Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws Seeking Money Damages - Demand for Trial By Jury | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 02/21/2007 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: Openwave Systems Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Louis Giltman, et al. v. Openwave Systems Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/05/2007 | ||
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