Case Page

 

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

Filing Date: June 13, 2001

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2006, on June 30, 2003, our Board of Directors considered and authorized us to negotiate a settlement of the pending Class Action Litigation substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding negotiated among proposed class plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and the insurers for such issuer defendants. Among other contingencies, any such settlement would be subject to approval by the Court. Plaintiffs filed on June 14, 2004, a motion for preliminary approval of the Stipulation And Agreement Of Settlement With Defendant Issuers And Individuals (the “Preliminary Approval Motion”). On February 15, 2005, the Court approved the Preliminary Approval Motion in a written opinion which detailed the terms of the settlement stipulation, its accompanying documents and schedules, the proposed class notice and, with a modification to the bar order to be entered, the proposed settlement order and judgment. A further conference was held on April 13, 2005, at which time the Court considered additional submissions but did not make final determinations regarding the exact form, substance and program for notifying the proposed settlement class. On August 31, 2005, the Court entered a further Preliminary Order in Connection with Settlement Proceedings (the “Preliminary Approval Order”), which granted preliminary approval to the issuer’s settlement with the plaintiffs in the IPO Securities Litigation. The Court subsequently held a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 fairness hearing on April 24, 2006 in order to consider the written and oral submissions addressing whether the Court should enter final approval of the settlement; the matter was taken under advisement and remains pending with the Court.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, five cases, along with lawsuits naming more than 300 other issuers and over 50 investment banks which have been sued in substantially similar lawsuits, have been assigned to the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin (the “Court”) for all pretrial purposes (the “IPO Securities Litigation”). On September 6, 2001, the Court entered an order consolidating the five individual cases involving the Company and designating Werman v. NaviSite, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-5374 as the lead case. A consolidated, amended complaint was filed thereafter on April 19, 2002. Between July and September 2002, the parties to the IPO Securities Litigation briefed motions to dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants and the issuer defendants, including NaviSite. On November 1, 2002, the Court held oral argument on the motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs have since agreed to dismiss the claims against Messrs. Rosen, Hale and Eisenberg without prejudice, in return for their agreement to toll any statute of limitations applicable to those claims. By stipulation entered by the Court on November 18, 2002, Messrs. Rosen, Hale and Eisenberg were dismissed without prejudice from the Class Action Litigation. On February 19, 2003, an opinion and order was issued on defendants’ motion to dismiss the IPO Securities Litigation, essentially denying the motions to dismiss of all 55 underwriter defendants and of 185 of the 301 issuer defendants, including NaviSite.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus (the "Prospectus") that contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The Prospectus was issued in connection with the NaviSite IPO. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) Robertson Stephens had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Robertson Stephens, allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of NaviSite shares issued in connection with the NaviSite IPO; and (ii) Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with customers whereby Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate NaviSite shares to those customers in the NaviSite IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional NaviSite shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NAVI
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-05374
JUDGE: Magistrate Judge James C. Francis
DATE FILED: 06/13/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/22/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
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. 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
  3. Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
    11 Broadway, Suite 400, Klayman & Toskes, P.A. , NY 10004
    888/997-9956 561/361-9178 · stoskes@nasd-law.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-05374
JUDGE: Magistrate Judge James C. Francis
DATE FILED: 04/19/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/22/1999
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 & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  3. 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 ·
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  5. Sirota & Sirota LLP
    110 Wall Street 21st Floor, Sirota & Sirota LLP, NY 10005
    888.759.2990 212.425.9093 · Info@SirotaLaw.com
  6. 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
  7. 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