Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/05/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 20, 2001

On December 5, 2006, the Court entered the Revised Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice signed by U.S. District Judge James Ware. The settlement was approved. That day, the Court also entered the Orders granting approval of the plan of allocation and awarding plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses.

According to a press release dated August 18, 2006, Cisco Systems Inc., said that it has reached an agreement to resolve a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in 2001 against the company and certain current and former directors and officers over allegations of insider trading. Under the terms of the settlement, liability insurers for Cisco and its directors and officers will pay $91.75 million to the plaintiffs. The payment will have no impact on Cisco's financial position or results of operations, the company said in a release. The agreement is subject to final documentation and court approval. The recovery, less fees and expenses, will be distributed to purchasers of Cisco common stock between Nov. 10, 1999 and Feb. 6, 2001 who timely file valid proofs of claim under procedures to be implemented by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

By the Stipulation and Order Dismissing Certain Individual Defendants signed by U.S. District Judge James Ware on March 9, 2006, the plaintiffs agree to dismiss the action with prejudice against two individual defendants.

The original complaint charges that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws. After completing more than 20 major acquisitions between 9/99 and 2/01, by issuing more than 400 million shares of Cisco stock, and selling more than 10 million shares of their personal Cisco holdings, on 2/6/01, Cisco announced extremely disappointing 2ndQ F01 results, including EPS of only $0.18. This disclosure shocked the market, causing Cisco's stock to decline to less than $30 per share before closing at $31-1/16 per share on 2/7/01, on record volume of more than 279 million shares, inflicting billions of dollars of damage on plaintiff and the Class. Cisco later admitted that 3rdQ F01 sales would be less than $4.8 billion, or lower than any quarter since the 2ndQ F00. Defendants' misconduct has wiped out over $400 billion in market capitalization as Cisco stock has fallen 84% from its Class Period high of $82 per share as the truth about Cisco, its operations and prospects began to reach the market. On 4/16/01, Cisco announced a $2.5 billion write-down of inventory (or 90% of its inventory as of 1/31/01) of components in its service business. This was one of the largest inventory write-downs in U.S. history. Cisco stock has dropped to as low as $13-3/16.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CSCO
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-20418
JUDGE: Hon. Bernard Zimmerman
DATE FILED: 04/20/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/10/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/06/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
  4. 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-20418
JUDGE: Hon. Bernard Zimmerman
DATE FILED: 12/06/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/10/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/06/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Echsner, & Proctor, P.A
    316 South Baylen Street - Suite 600, Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Echsner, & Proctor, P.A, FL 32501
    850.435.7000 850.436.6084 ·
  3. 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