Case Page


Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 01/30/2001 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 03, 2000

According to the docket posted, on January 30, 2001, the Court entered the Orders granting the motions for approval of the plan of allocation and for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. The Court awarded Representative Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees of twenty-five percent of the Settlement Fund and expenses in an aggregate amount of $110,098.81 together with the interest earned. The Court further entered that day the Final Judgment and Order of dismissal with prejudice by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, and the case was terminated.

As reported by the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2000, in August 2000, all parties to the litigation agreed to a settlement. Under the settlement, defendants' insurance carriers will pay plaintiffs $4.3 million. On October 27, 2000 the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court has scheduled a January 26, 2001 hearing to consider whether the settlement will be given final approval. The Company also is cooperating with an informal investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the restatement.

Earlier, according to the same SEC filing, the Company and several of its former officers and/or directors have been named as defendants in six substantially identical securities class action cases filed since February 3, 2000, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California (the Court). The cases subsequently were consolidated. The complaints are brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between October 28, 1999, when the Company issued a press release announcing unaudited financial statements for the third quarter of 1999, through January 27, 2000, when the Company announced its intention to restate those financial statements. The Plaintiffs have not demanded any particular amount in damages.

The original complaint charges Indus and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Indus provides enterprise asset management software and service solutions. The Company's products are used to improve operational business functions for energy, manufacturing, industrial and other companies that have capital-intensive operations. Indus was formed in June 1997 through a merger and reorganization of TSW International, Inc. and The Indus Group, Inc. After the merger, Indus' stock traded in the $10 to $15 range for a short time and then decreased to the $5 to $8 range for the second half of 1998 and most of 1999 as Indus reported little in the way of revenue growth, particularly on license fees which had substantially higher gross margins than service and maintenance fee revenues. In early 1999, Indus hired new management in order to correct this shortfall. In late October 1999, Indus announced its results for the third quarter ended September 30, 1999, including better-than-expected license revenues of $9.935 million. On December 9, 1999, Indus announced a new business model including a strong focus on electronic business. These announcements caused Indus' stock to increase dramatically to as high as $13-5/8 per share. Then on January 27, 2000, Indus admitted that its third quarter 1999 results had been false with license revenue overstated by $5 million. On these shocking disclosures, Indus' stock price declined to as low as $5-15/16 per share from $9-11/16 the day earlier. One individual defendant took advantage of Indus' inflated stock price, selling 175,000 of shares for proceeds exceeding $2.1 million.


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


Ticker Symbol: IINT
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 00-CV-392
JUDGE: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Sper
DATE FILED: 02/03/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/27/2000
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Westfield, NJ)
    220 St. Paul Street, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Westfield, NJ), NJ 07090
    908.928.1700 908.301.9008 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date