According to the docket, on August 19, 2003, the Court entered the certified copy of the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant failed to timely pay docketing fee. The appellants motioned to reinstate the appeal, which was granted. On April 1, 2005, the Court entered the certified copy of the Judgment from the Fifth Circuit. According to the Judgment, it is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. It is further ordered that appellants pay to appellees the costs on appeal to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court.
On May 15, 2001, the Court entered the Orders consolidating the cases 1:00cv831, 1:01cv96 and 1:00cv776, and further granted the motions to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On June 4, 2001, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On April 15, 2002, the Court entered the Order denying the motion to dismiss without prejudice to filing a motion for summary judgment. On July 29, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was denied by an Order entered on October 22, 2002. On August 26, 2002, plaintiff Michael Avrutin filed notice of withdrawal as lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying class certification, which was later denied in an Order entered on December 18, 2002. Further, the Court granted the motion for Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach to withdraw as attorneys with regard to the still pending individual claims of the lead plaintiffs. On January 17, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or alternatively, for summary judgment. On May 6, 2003, the Court entered the Order signed by Honorable Sam Sparks granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Order dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the individual claims of Krim, Pinkowitz, J. Burke, G. Burke, Petrick and Beebe. It was also ordered that defendants tender to Bret Beebe the sum of $14,625, plus interest at the rate of 1.25 percent per annum from January 15, 2003 until paid. The case was closed. On May 22, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Several cases were originally filed in state court and removed to federal district court. The first case was Martens v. pcOrder.com, Inc., et al, case number 00-cv-00742, which was removed to federal court on November 17, 2000. The case was later remanded back to the District Court of Travis County, Texas. Another case, Stahl v. pcOrder.com, Inc., et al, case numberg 00-cv-00768, was remanded from state court to federal court on December 1, 2000, and then remanded back to the District Court of Travis County, Texas. A third case Krim, et al v. pcOrder.com, Inc., et al, case number 00-cv-00776, was remanded from state to federal court on December 4, 2000, but the case remained in federal court. Several class actions were consolidated into the Krim action, the court granted lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and, on June 4, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
The original complaint charges pcOrder, its controlling shareholder Trilogy Software, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that during 1999, defendants issued and sold more than $206 million of pcOrder stock in its IPO and its December Offering. Thereafter, in connection with defendants' attempts to allow Trilogy to acquire all of pcOrder, defendants revealed facts confirming that the registration statements issued by defendants in connection with the IPO (the "March Registration Statement") and the December Offering (the "December Registration Statement") (collectively, the "Registration Statement") had been false when issued. The complaint alleges that Defendants have now admitted in filings made by them with Securities and Exchange Commission that the Registration Statements were false and misleading in that they failed to disclose that, contrary to defendants' statements in the Registration Statements, pcOrder did not possess: (i) a formal business plan to carry out the Company's so-called "strategy"; (ii) budget or expense controls; or (iii) an ability to report accurate operating information.