According to the docket, on April 11, 2003, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff denying the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Court's order dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, n December 13, 2000, a class action lawsuit was filed against Razorfish and certain officers of the corporation in the Southern District of New York. An additional 12 identical actions have since been filed, and all suits have been consolidated in the Southern District. The suits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder based on alleged false statements made in Razorfish’s public disclosures concerning the integration of i-Cube, a company acquired by Razorfish in 1999. On September 26, 2001, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) granted with prejudice Razorfish’s motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action. Plaintiffs are seeking reconsideration of this decision.
The original complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and misleading financial information regarding the Company's condition and prospects. Specifically, the complaint charges that during the class period, defendants repeatedly misrepresented that (I) Razorfish was successfully integrating its recent acquisitions, particularly International Integrated Incorporated ("I-Cube"); (ii) Razorfish was achieving sharp earnings and revenue growth due to internal growth when in fact it was due to accretion of revenues and earnings from recent acquisitions; and (iii) Razorfish was not subject to material currency fluctuations because it did not repatriate revenue from its European operations. The dissemination of this materially misleading information caused Razorfish's common stock to be artificially inflated throughout the class period. Certain company insiders took advantage of the artificially inflated stock price to dump approximately $12.7 million of their own shares on unsuspecting investors.