Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/01/2000 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: October 05, 1998

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For The Quarter Ended September 30, 2000, on January 27, 1999, in response to a motion to dismiss filed by the Company, the plaintiffs consolidated the three complaints and filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. On November 1, 2000, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint and entered judgment in the Company’s favor.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, on October 5, 1998, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between April 28, 1998 and October 2, 1998. This lawsuit is identified here as the Van Ormer Complaint. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and claims violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that the Company issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s financial condition, its operations and its integration of several acquisitions. On October 26, 1998, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between April 28, 1998 and October 2, 1998. This second lawsuit was identical to the Van Ormer Complaint except for the named plaintiff. This second lawsuit is identified here as the Clancey Complaint. On November 20, 1998, a third purported class action lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. This third lawsuit was identical to the Van Ormer and Clancey Complaints except for the named plaintiff, the expansion of the class action period to include purchasers of the Company’s common stock from January 27, 1998 to October 2, 1998 and the addition of references to statements made between January 27, 1998 and April 28, 1998. This third lawsuit is identified here as the Marucci Complaint.

The original complaint charges Aspen and certain officers and directors of the Company during the relevant time period with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's costs and revenues, its business, products, operations, financial condition and the integration of several acquisitions. Because of the issuance of a series of false and misleading statements, the price of Aspen common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts described above, Aspen used its common stock as currency to complete a $146.6 million acquisition and issued more than $75 million in convertible debt on favorable terms.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AZPN
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. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 98-CV-12018
JUDGE: Hon. Patti B. Saris
DATE FILED: 10/05/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/28/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/02/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
    501 West Broadway, Suit 1250, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, CA 92101
    877.493.5366 619.238.5425 ·
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
  5. Moulton & Gans LLP
    133 Federal Street, Moulton & Gans LLP, MA 2110
    617.369.7979 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 98-CV-12018
JUDGE: Hon. Patti B. Saris
DATE FILED: 01/27/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/28/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/02/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
    501 West Broadway, Suit 1250, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, CA 92101
    877.493.5366 619.238.5425 ·
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  4. Moulton & Gans LLP
    133 Federal Street, Moulton & Gans LLP, MA 2110
    617.369.7979 ·
No Document Title Filing Date