Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/19/2003 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 21, 2001

According to the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003, in April 2003, in response to the Company’s motion to dismiss, certain of the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice. However, plaintiffs were permitted to file a further amended complaint with respect to several remaining claims. In November 2003, a settlement and dismissal of the action was approved by the Court. The settlement was funded entirely by the defendants’ insurers in August and September 2003.

As stated in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the action. The proposed settlement creates a fund in the amount of $11,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement Fund") and will include interest that accrues on the fund prior to distribution. Depending on the number of eligible shares purchased by Settlement Class Members who elect to participate in the settlement and when those shares were purchased and sold, the estimated average recovery per share will be approximately $0.92 before deduction of Court-approved fees and expenses.

If the settlement is approved by the Court, counsel for the plaintiffs will apply to the Court for attorneys' fees of 30% of the Settlement Fund and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses not to exceed $250,000 to be paid from the Settlement Fund. If the amount requested is approved by the Court, the average cost per share will be $0.29.

The original complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges the Nuance and certain of its officers and directors disseminated materially false and misleading statements concerning, among other things, the Company's revenue growth and improved profitability, while concealing material adverse information concerning the declining demand for the Company's products and services. As a result, Nuance stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. During the time that defendants touted the Company's historical and anticipated growth and improved profitability, Company insiders sold more that $15 million in Nuance stock.

The complaint further alleges that on March 15, 2001, Nuance announced that its First Quarter 2001 performance was not on track, that revenue was shrinking, and that a loss three times the size of that which was previously expected was forthcoming. Following the Company's announcement, the price of the Company's stock fell over 40%.

Nuance attributes the revenue shortfall primarily to general economic conditions, which have led customers and customer prospects to postpone capital investment in Nuance products and service offerings based on Nuance products. The company believes its visibility is limited for both the second quarter and full-year results.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NUAN
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-20320
JUDGE: Hon. Samuel Conti
DATE FILED: 03/21/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/31/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/15/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ackerman, Link & Sartory, P.A.
    222 Lakeview Avenue, Esperante, Suite 1330, Ackerman, Link & Sartory, P.A., FL 33401
    888.257.1529 ·
  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. Holzer & Holzer, LLC
    1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107, Holzer & Holzer, LLC, GA 30338
    770.392.0090 770.392-0029 · mfistel@holzerlaw.com
  4. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
    335 Central Avenue, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence), NY 11559
    516.374.0707 516.295.3473 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  5. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  6. 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
  7. Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C.

    800.993.3233 · sfprpc@op.net
  8. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  9. Seeger Weiss LLP (New York Old Address)
    40 Wall Street. The Trump Building, Seeger Weiss LLP (New York Old Address), NY 10005
    212.584.0700 · info@seegerweiss.com
  10. Seeger Weiss LLP (New York)
    One William Street, Seeger Weiss LLP (New York), NY 10004
    212.584.0700 · info@seegerweiss.com
  11. 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
  12. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
  13. 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-20320
JUDGE: Hon. Samuel Conti
DATE FILED: 09/26/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/31/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/15/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
    830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP, NY 10022
    212.317.2300 ·
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
    100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  4. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date