Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/11/2003 (Other)

Filing Date: December 13, 2000

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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RAZF
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. New York
DOCKET #: 00-CV-09474
JUDGE: Hon. Jed S. Rakoff
DATE FILED: 12/13/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/15/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/05/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. 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 ·
  3. 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
  4. 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
  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
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 00-CV-09474
JUDGE: Hon. Jed S. Rakoff
DATE FILED: 02/23/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/15/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/05/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Bull & Lifshitz
    18 East 41st St., Bull & Lifshitz, NY 10017
    212.213.6222 212.213.9405 ·
  3. Curtis V. Trinko LLP
    16 West 46th Street 7th Floor, Curtis V. Trinko LLP, NY 10036
    212.490.9550 212.986.0158 · ctrinko@trinko.com
  4. 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 ·
  5. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  6. 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
  7. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date