Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/25/2001 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 17, 2000

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2001, after receiving the Company's motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs themselves moved to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice on April 23, 2001. The plaintiffs received no consideration for, and the Company assented to, the dismissal. On September 25, 2001 the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts approved the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint filed against the Company.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, during February 2000, certain shareholders of the Company filed two substantially similar putative class action complaints against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and employees in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts that are captioned as follows: Liz Lindawati, et al. v. Inso Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 00-CV-10305GAO; Group One Limited, et al. v. Inso Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 00-CV-10318GAO. These lawsuits were filed following our preliminary disclosure of revenues for the fiscal year 2000 fourth quarter on February 1, 2000. They assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as a claim for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On June 14, 2000, the District Court ordered that both actions be consolidated into one lawsuit entitled In Re Inso Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 00-103050-GAO. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 21, 2001. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants prepared and issued deceptive and materially false and misleading statements to the investing public. They sought unspecified damages. On April 9, 2001, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the relevant securities laws.

The original complaint charges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by providing materially false and misleading information concerning the Company's successful transition to an e-Business Internet company and by failing to disclose adverse trends in the demand for the Company's products and services. As a result of these false and
misleading statements the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the class period. The complaint further alleges that prior to the
disclosure of the above mentioned adverse facts, certain insiders took
advantage of the inflated stock price by selling thousands of shares of Inso
common stock to the investing public. When the truth about the Company was revealed, the price of the stock dropped significantly.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: INSO
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 #: 00-CV-10305
JUDGE: Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr.
DATE FILED: 02/17/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/28/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/01/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. (Little Rock)
    2200 Rodney Parham Road Suite 218, Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. (Little Rock), AR 72212
    501.312.8500 ·
  2. Shepherd & Geller LLC
    117 Gayley Street, Suite 200, Shepherd & Geller LLC, PA 19063
    ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 00-CV-10305
JUDGE: Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr.
DATE FILED: 02/21/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/28/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/01/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP (Little Rock, AR)
    11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP (Little Rock, AR), AR 72212
    ·
  2. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Bala Cynwyd)
    273 Montgomery Ave. Suite 202, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Bala Cynwyd), PA 19004
    610.660.8000 610.660.8080 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  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 ·
  5. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date