Quest Software, 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

Quest Software, Inc. Summary: As summarized by the lead counsel’s website, Middlesex Retirement System has been selected by the United States District Court for the Central District of California as Lead Plaintiff and Wolf Popper LLP as Lead Counsel in the class action lawsuit against Quest Software, Inc.

The action is pending before United States District Judge David O. Carter. The lawsuit alleges that Quest Software, Inc. and certain of its executives (“Quest”) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose and concealing through various false statements and omissions that they did not properly account for issuing stock option grants at prices which were below fair market value on the actual grant date. Consequently, the price of Quest stock was artificially inflated during the period November 9, 2001 through July 3, 2006.

The First Amended Complaint was filed on March 26, 2007 and the defendants moved for dismissal on May 25, 2007. On October 22, 2007, Judge David O. Carter granted in part and denied in part the motion by the defendants to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On January 18, 2008, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

On July 10, 2008, the judge granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The order states, "Defendants' Motions to Dismiss are hereby DENIED, except that Plaintiff's § 20A claim is hereby DISMISSED against Defendants Doyle, Murdock and Garn. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to begin producing discovery posthaste."

Shortly after the judge's denial to dismiss the case, defendants filed answers to the complaint. The parties soon engaged in the discovery phase. On June 12, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class. The Company filed its opposition to the motion to certify the class on August 4, 2009. The U.S. District Court scheduled a hearing on the motion for class certification on August 31, 2009. On September 8, 2009, Judge David O. Carter granted the lead plaintiff’s motion to certify the class action.

On November 19, 2009, a Stipulation for Settlement and a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement were filed. According to the Stipulation, the proposed settlement is in the amount of $29,400,000.00. On December 7, 2009, Judge Carter preliminarily approved the settlement and the Settlement Hearing was set for March 15, 2010.

On April 26, 2010, Judge Carter approved the final settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. Plaintiff’s Counsel was awarded 25% of the settlement fund for fees and $612,726.66 for expenses.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Quest Software, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	QSFT
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.quest.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Middlesex Retirement System, et al. v. Quest Software, Inc., et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 06-CV-06863
JUDGE NAME: Hon. S. James Otero
DATE FILED: 10/27/2006	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/09/2001	CLASS PERIOD END: 07/03/2006
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Hulett Harper Stewart LLP 525 B Street, Suite 760, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 619..338.1133, (fax) 619..338.1139, office@hulettharper.com Wolf Popper, LLP 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022-6689 (voice) 877.370.7703, (fax) 212.486.2093, IRRep@wolfpopper.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 10/27/2006
Order Re Transfer Pursuant To General Order 224 (Related Cases)
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/13/2006
Stipulation And Order Appointed Lead Plaintiff And Approving Lead Plaintiff’s Selection Of Counsel
Type: Order		Date on the document: 01/24/2007

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Middlesex Retirement System, et al. v. Quest Software, Inc., et al.

COURT: C.D. California	DOCKET NUMBER: 06-CV-06863
JUDGE NAME: Hon. David O. Carter
DATE FILED: 01/18/2008	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/09/2001	CLASS PERIOD END: 07/03/2006
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Wolf Popper, LLP 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022-6689 (voice) 877.370.7703, (fax) 212.486.2093, IRRep@wolfpopper.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
First Amended Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/26/2007
Second Amended Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/18/2008
Amended Order 1) Granting In Part, Denying In Part Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint; 20 Ordering Discovery
Type: Order		Date on the document: 07/10/2008
Stipulation of Settlement
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 11/19/2009
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement of Class Action and Establishing Notice Procedures
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/07/2009
Order And Final Judgment
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/26/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/29/2010

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint For Violations Of The Sarbanes Oxley-Act Of 2002, Section 14(a) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934, Break Of Fiduciary Duty, Abuse Of Control, Gross Mismanagement, Waste Of Corporate Assets, Unjust Enrichment, Accounting, Rescission, For A Constructive Trust And Violations Of California Corporations Code
Case Name and/or Number: Phillip Eng, et al. v. Vincent C. Smith, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/15/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Phillip Eng, et al. v. Vincent C. Smith, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/26/2008

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

�