Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/07/2000 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 11, 1999

According to the docket, on December 6, 2000, U.S. District Judge G. R. Anderson Jr. approved the five million dollar settlement. The plaintiff’s counsel was awarded 30% of the settlement and attorney’s fees in the amount of $97,770.00. Earlier, the Court entered an Order on May 12, 2000, dismissing the action without prejudice and the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement was entered on September 22, 2000.

The original Complaint alleges that defendants improperly inflated earnings from operations by utilizing accounting treatments not in conformity with generally accepted accounting practices. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants (1) improperly accounted for operating expenses as one-time charges connected to acquisitions; and (2) beginning in the second quarter of 1998, capitalized marketing expenses that had previously been expenses without disclosing a
material change in its accounting practices. The Complaint further alleges that defendants' misleading positive statements artificially inflated the price of Datastream's common stock during the Class Period. On October 20, 1998, Datastream surprised investors by issuing a press release announcing disappointing earnings for the third quarter of 1998. The market reacted sharply to the announcement with Datastream stock falling $4-1/8 or 29%, to $10 per share. Datastream common stock had traded above $20 per share for much of the Class Period.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DSTM
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: D. South Carolina
DOCKET #: 99-CV-00088
JUDGE: Hon. G. Ross Anderson, Jr.
DATE FILED: 01/11/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/01/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/20/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole
    28 Bridgeside Blvd. , Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, SC 29464
    843.216.9000 · inquiry@nmlrp.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. South Carolina
DOCKET #: 99-CV-00088
JUDGE: Hon. G. Ross Anderson, Jr.
DATE FILED: 08/13/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/01/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/20/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton)
    The Plaza, Suite 900, 5355 Town Center Road, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33486
    561.361.5000 ·
No Document Title Filing Date