Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/19/2000 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 14, 1998

According to the firm's 10-K filing dated 4/02/2001, on December 20, 2000, the Court granted final approval to the settlement agreement Pegasystems entered into with the Gelfer plaintiffs on behalf of the Gelfer class approving the terms of the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the class, and dismissing the action with prejudice. Pursuant to the Court's final order, the Company issued to the Settlement Fund 1,740,000 shares of Pegasystems common stock and contributed $2.39 million in cash. Certain members of the Board of Directors purchased the shares from the Settlement Fund for $5.36 million in cash. Together with cash previously advanced, the total value paid to the class for the settlement of the Gelfer litigation was $12.25 million.

The original complaint charges that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period about its 1998 revenues and earnings. On November 24, 1998, Pegasystems revealed that it would delay the filing of its quarterly report because it was "reviewing certain revenue transactions" and that it expected "adjustments to results of operations" which had been released just three weeks earlier.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PEGA
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: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 98-CV-12527
JUDGE: Hon. Joseph L. Tauro
DATE FILED: 12/14/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/29/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/24/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 98-CV-12527
JUDGE: Hon. Joseph L. Tauro
DATE FILED: 04/29/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/29/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/24/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date