Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/06/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: May 10, 2001

In December 2006, the appellate court overturned the certification of classes in six test cases that were selected by the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings. Because class certification was a condition of the settlement, it was unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court approval. On June 28, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement based upon a stipulation among the parties to the settlement.

According to the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, in June 2003, DoubleClick’s Board of Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the court for preliminary approval. The court granted the preliminary approval motion on February 15, 2005, subject to certain modifications. If the parties are able to agree upon the required modifications, and such modifications are acceptable to the court, notice will be given to all class members of the settlement, a “fairness” hearing will be held and if the court determines that the settlement is fair to the class members, the settlement will be approved.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, in April 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint alleging violation of the federal securities laws in connection with DoubleClick’s follow-on offerings was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants DoubleClick, some of its officers and directors and certain underwriters of DoubleClick’s follow-on offerings. Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New York. In October 2002, the action was dismissed against the named officers and directors without prejudice. However, claims against DoubleClick remain. In July 2002, DoubleClick and the other issuers in the consolidated cases filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, which was denied as to DoubleClick in February 2003.

The original complaint against DoubleClick, Inc. alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement filed with the SEC on or about February 19, 1998, and the Prospectus filed on or about February 20, 1998 for the issuance and initial public offering of 3.5 million shares of DoubleClick common stock contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Advertising
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DCLK
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-3980
JUDGE: Hon. Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
DATE FILED: 05/10/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/23/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/02/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-3980
JUDGE: Hon. Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
DATE FILED: 04/19/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/11/1998
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  4. Sirota & Sirota LLP
    110 Wall Street 21st Floor, Sirota & Sirota LLP, NY 10005
    888.759.2990 212.425.9093 · Info@SirotaLaw.com
  5. 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
  6. 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