Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/07/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: October 02, 2000

On October 9, 2007 the judge entered a Final Order approving the settlement and dismissing the case. According to Priceline's 10-Q dated June 2007, their insurance carrier will cover the settlement up to $30,000,000 with the balance coming from Priceline's cashflows.

According to a press release dated July 19, 2007, in a class-action securities suit alleging the defendants made misleading statements about profitability, resulting in losses to investors, a court approved the parties' agreement to settle for $80 million and awarded attorneys' fees of 30 percent of the award, plus litigation expenses of $1.3 million. Plaintiffs purchased Priceline.com securities between Jan. 27, 2000 and Oct. 4, 2000. In October 2004, the District Court dismissed some of the plaintiffs' claims against Priceline.com defendants and all the allegations against Deloitte and Touche. During litigation the parties produced 5.2 million pages of documents. In 2007, the parties agreed to a cash settlement of $80 million. … The court also granted the requests of class members who decided to opt out of the settlement, on behalf of themselves or trusts, provided that they supply the dates, numbers, prices and types of purchases and sales of Priceline.com securities.

According to a press release dated May 4, 2007, Priceline.com Incorporated (Nasdaq: PCLN) announced that it had agreed to settle the securities class action litigation that was filed against the Company in 2000. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the class will receive $80 million in return for a release, with prejudice, of all claims against the Company and the individual defendants that are related to the purchase of the Company's securities by class members during the class period. The Company's insurance carriers will fund $30 million of the settlement. The settlement is subject to approval by the Court after notice to the class. In connection with the settlement announced today, the Company expects to incur a net charge of approximately $55 million in the 1st quarter of 2007, representing the settlement amount and estimated legal expenses relating to the settlement.

According to the FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, on October 30, 2006, the Court issued an Order setting forth a partial schedule, designating December 31, 2007 as the deadline for the completion of discovery.

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, twenty-two cases were assigned to Judge Dominic J. Squatrito. On September 12, 2001, Judge Squatrito ordered that these cases be consolidated under the Master File No. 3:00cv1884 (DJS), and he designated lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs’ counsel. On October 29, 2001, plaintiffs served a Consolidated Amended Complaint. On February 5, 2002, Amerindo Investment Advisors, Inc., who was one of the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action, made a motion for leave to withdraw as lead plaintiff. The Court granted that motion on May 30, 2002. On February 28, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On October 7, 2004, the Court issued a Memorandum of Decision granting, in part, and denying, in part, the Company’s motion. A scheduling order was entered by the Court on November 2, 2004 and the parties are now proceeding with discovery. On December 8, 2005, the Court issued a Memorandum of Decision and Order stating that the November 2, 2004 scheduling order would be revised, but only after the parties have provided more details about the status of discovery. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January 7, 2005 and the Company filed its opposition to that motion. On April 4, 2006, the Court issued a Memorandum of Decision granting, in part, and denying, in part, the plaintiffs’ motion. The Court certified a class and approved five of the six proposed class representatives. On May 4, 2006, the case was transferred to Judge Christopher F. Droney. [The Court gave the plaintiffs until May 5, 2006 to submit a proposed notice and proposed means for providing notice to the class.] Objections thereto or alternative proposals are due on or before May 19, 2006.

The original complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading information regarding Priceline's financial condition and prospects. Specifically, the complaint charges that defendants misrepresented that the Company would soon be profitable, that the Company's customer loyalty was accelerating and that the Company's business model would continue to be effective.

The dissemination of this materially misleading information caused
Priceline's common stock to be artificially inflated throughout the Class
Period. Certain Company insiders took advantage of this inflated stock price
to sell $197 million of their own shares to the unsuspecting public during the
Class Period.

The truth about Priceline's operating condition was revealed to the investing
public before the market opened on September 27, 2000, when Priceline
disclosed, among other things, that the Company would not make money in the third quarter due to weakness in the sale of airline tickets and that revenues would be approximately $340 million to $345 million, significantly below analysts forecasts of $360 million to $380 million. These disclosures caused Priceline's stock price to decline 42% to a 52-week low of $10.75 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PCLN
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. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 00-CV-01884
JUDGE: Hon. Dominic J. Squatrito
DATE FILED: 10/02/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/24/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/26/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernard M. Gross
    1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600, Bernard M. Gross, PA 19102
    215.561.3600 215.561.3000 · bmgross@BernardMGross.com
  2. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  3. Dennis J. Johnson
    1690 Williston Road, Dennis J. Johnson, VT 5402
    888.459.7855 · LODJJ@aol.com
  4. Hurwitz & Sagarin
    147 North Broad St., Po Box 112, Hurwitz & Sagarin, CT 06460-0112
    203.877.8000 ·
  5. Johnson & Perkinson
    1690 Williston Road, Johnson & Perkinson, VT 05403
    802.862.0030 802.862.0060 · JPLAW@adelphia.net
  6. Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
    830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP, NY 10022
    212.317.2300 ·
  7. Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York)
    500 Fifth Avenue, Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York), NY 10110
    212.608.1900 212.719.4677 · info@lshllp.com
  8. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
  9. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  10. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  11. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
    35 East State Street, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, PA 19063
    877.891.9880 · jshah@classactioncounsel.com
  12. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
    1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego), PA 19103
    215.496.0300 215.496.6611 ·
  13. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
  14. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
    The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), NY 10126
    212.682.3025 212.682.3010 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 00-CV-01884
JUDGE: Hon. Dominic J. Squatrito
DATE FILED: 10/29/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/24/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/26/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Hurwitz & Sagarin
    147 North Broad St., Po Box 112, Hurwitz & Sagarin, CT 06460-0112
    203.877.8000 ·
  2. Johnson & Perkinson
    1690 Williston Road, Johnson & Perkinson, VT 05403
    802.862.0030 802.862.0060 · JPLAW@adelphia.net
  3. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  4. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  5. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
    35 East State Street, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, PA 19063
    877.891.9880 · jshah@classactioncounsel.com
  6. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
  7. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
    The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), NY 10126
    212.682.3025 212.682.3010 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date