Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/25/2002 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 02, 2001

According to the docket dated July 16, 2003, on July 25, 2003, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup granting the Lead Counsel’s application for approval of the final report of the claims administrator and authorizing distribution of the net settlement fund. Earlier, on June 25, 2002, the Court entered the Order granting the motion for final approval of the Class Action Settlement as well as the motion for attorney fees and reimbursement of expenses. The Court further entered the Final Judgment and Order of dismissal with prejudice. The case was terminated by the Judgment entered on August 7, 2002. On May 20, 2003, Judge William H. Alsup authorized the distribution of the net settlement fund.

Beginning on February 1, 2002, a number of securities class action complaints were filed against the Company, and certain of its former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The purported class action complaints allege that during a period from April 21, 2000 through September 25, 2000, Critical Path and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Critical Path provides e-mail hosting services to a variety of organizations, including Internet service providers, Web hosting companies, Web portals, and corporations. Many of these types of companies were new and were suffering from a downturn in Internet-related funding which began in the spring of 2000. The complaint alleges that the problems many of these companies were having raising money had reached crisis levels and were impacting Critical Path's ability to collect receivables. Defendants had also known for months that new accounting regulations would negate the Company's ability to continue to recognize up-front license fees in Q4 2000. Defendants knew this would severely impair Critical Path's future revenue growth and impair their ability to make future stock sales and extract future bonuses which were tied to the Company's performance. Thus, defendants continued to make positive but false statements about Critical Path's business and projections for Q3/Q4 2000 and beyond. On March 28, 2002 Plaintiff entered a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rule P. 41(a)(1), to dismiss the action without prejudice. On April 03, 2002, the Court related all other similar 2003 filings and closed the case.

The original action charges that Critical Path and some of its top officers misled investors about the company's revenues and earnings and that the company did not prepare its financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. On February 2, 2001, the company announced it had discovered "a number of transactions that put into question the company's financial results." In addition, the company stated that its 2000 4th quarter results may be "materially misleading" an two senior officers were placed "on leave. As a result of the announcement, Critical Path's shares fell 67% from its closing price of $10.06 on February 1 to $3.86 on February 2, before trading in the stock was halted on the Nasdaq Stock Market.

Specifically, the complaint allege that beginning on or about August 8, 2000, defendants embarked on a scheme to defraud investors in order to artificially boost
Critical Path's stock price, as they realized that a high stock price was
necessary to effect purchases of other Companies and dispose of their shares of
the Company reaping millions of dollars in profits to themselves. By making a
series of false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period and
reassuring the public that Critical Path was not facing material difficulties
in its business, defendants were able to artificially inflate the stock price
of the Company.

The complaint alleges that this scheme began when defendants announced that
Critical Path had entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Peer Logic,
Inc., a private, San Francisco-based provider of eBusiness infrastructure
software. Among other things, Critical Path stated in its press release that
the "Company expects transaction to be accretive to 2001 consensus estimates
for revenue and earnings per share. Acquisition does not impact commitment to
fourth quarter 2000 profitability."

The complaint further alleges that defendants continued, right up to the very
end of the Class Period on February 1, 2001 to make false and misleading
statements or omissions and failed to correct those statements and omissions at
any time until February 1, 2001. Throughout the Class Period, defendants gave
consistently misleading guidance to the numerous investment firms which it
admittedly knew were following the Company and basing their advice and analysis
directly on defendants' false and misleading representations. The complaint alleges that as a result of the defendants' conduct, plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered damages.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CPTH
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 01-CV-0551
JUDGE: Hon. Samuel Conti
DATE FILED: 02/02/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/15/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/01/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Beatie & Osborne LLP
    599 Lexington Avenue, 42nd Floor, Beatie & Osborne LLP, NY 10022
    212.888.9000 212.888.9664 ·
  2. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  3. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
    One Liberty Square, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), MA 2109
    617.542.8300 617.230.0903 · info@bermanesq.com
  4. Bull & Lifshitz
    18 East 41st St., Bull & Lifshitz, NY 10017
    212.213.6222 212.213.9405 ·
  5. 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 ·
  6. Edward J. Carreiro

    ·
  7. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (former New York, NY)
    805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (former New York, NY), NY 10022
    212.687.1980 212.687.7714 · info@kaplanfox.com
  8. Keller Rohrback LLP (Seattle)
    1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Keller Rohrback LLP (Seattle), WA 98101-3052
    800.776.6044 206.623.3384 · investor@kellerrohrback.com
  9. Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
    830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP, NY 10022
    212.317.2300 ·
  10. 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
  11. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  12. Lionel Z. Glancy
    1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 308, Lionel Z. Glancy, CA 90067
    310.201.9150 ·
  13. 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
  14. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  15. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  16. Schoengold & Sporn PC (New York)
    233 Broadway 39Th Floor, Schoengold & Sporn PC (New York), NY 10279
    212.964.0046 ·
  17. Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP
    276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP, NY 10001
    212.686.8004 212.686.8005 · lawyer@lawssb.com
  18. 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
  19. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
  20. Weinstein, Kitchenoff, Scarlato & Goldman
    1608 Walnut Street, Suite 1400, Weinstein, Kitchenoff, Scarlato & Goldman, PA 19103
    215.545.7200 215.545.6535 · info@wksg.com
  21. 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
  22. 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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 01-CV-0551
JUDGE: Hon. Samuel Conti
DATE FILED: 08/31/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/20/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/01/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Beatie & Osborne LLP
    599 Lexington Avenue, 42nd Floor, Beatie & Osborne LLP, NY 10022
    212.888.9000 212.888.9664 ·
  2. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (CA)
    425 California Street, Suite 2025, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (CA), CA 94104
    415.433.3200 415.433.6382 ·
  3. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL)
    515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL), FL 33401
    561.835.9400 ·
  4. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
    One Liberty Square, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), MA 2109
    617.542.8300 617.230.0903 · info@bermanesq.com
  5. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  6. Heins Mills & Olson PLC
    3550 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street, Heins Mills & Olson PLC, MN 55402
    612.338.4605 612.338.4692 · info@heinsmills.com
  7. Law Offices of John W. Allured
    One Maritime Plaza, Suite 1040, Law Offices of John W. Allured, CA 94111
    415-675-2960 ·
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
No Document Title Filing Date