Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/09/2002 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 22, 2000

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2002, on March 19, 2002, the pending purported class action litigation was dismissed with leave to amend. The deadline for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint expired on April 10, 2002. The deadline for plaintiffs to file a notice of appeal from the order dismissing the complaint was April 18, 2002. Plaintiffs neither filed an amended complaint, nor a notice of appeal.

As previously disclosed in the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001, between June 22, 2000 and August 14, 2000, four purported class-action complaints were filed against the Company and individuals of the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On September 11, 2000 the court consolidated all four actions, and appointed four individuals to serve as "lead plaintiffs." The plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint on November 20, 2000. On January 4, 2001 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on February 20, 2001. The Company's reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed on March 21, 2001 and oral argument was held on April 2, 2001. On February 5, 2002, a United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the amended complaint be dismissed, without prejudice. On February 15, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. The District Court has not yet acted on the Report and Recommendation. Discovery in this action has not yet commenced, and is stayed pursuant to statutes based on the filing of the motion to dismiss, which stay would be lifted in the event that the Court denies such motion to dismiss.

The original Complaint charges that SGAI and certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that defendants misled investors by issuing false and misleading statements, including announcing record results without disclosing that its revenue growth could not be sustained and that the Company failed to have adequate reserves for doubtful accounts. As a result, SGAI common stock rose to over $21 per share, allowing Company officers and other insiders to sell over 3,000,000 shares of SGAI for proceeds of more than $35,000,000 during the Class Period. At the end of the Class Period, SGAI stock closed at $4.91 per share. The Complaint seeks recovery of damages suffered by all purchasers of SGAI stock during the Class Period.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SGAI
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: S.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 00-CV-8547
JUDGE: Hon. Shelby Highsmith
DATE FILED: 06/22/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/27/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/16/2000
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. Burt & Pucillo LLP
    515 North Flagler Drive, Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, Burt & Pucillo LLP, FL 33401
    800.349.4612 ·
  3. Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA)
    225 Broadway, Suite 1900, Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92010
    619.702.7350 619.702.7351 ·
  4. Harold B. Obstfeld
    260 Madison Avenue, Harold B. Obstfeld, NY 10016
    212.696.1210 ·
  5. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  6. Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 204, Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    888.337.6663 · Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com
  7. 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
  8. 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
COURT: S.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 00-CV-8547
JUDGE: Hon. Shelby Highsmith
DATE FILED: 11/20/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/27/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/16/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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