Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 05/11/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 19, 2001

On May 11, 2004, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Thomas S.
Zilly approving the plan of allocation of the settlement proceeds. The Court further entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.

According to 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 $34,300,000 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 $0.19 before deduction of Court-approved fees and expenses.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court, Plaintiffs' Settlement Counsel will apply to the Court for attorneys' fees of 25% of the Settlement Fund after deduction of court awarded expenses, or approximately $8.45 million in cash, and reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses not to exceed $500,000 to be paid from the Settlement Fund. If the amount requested is approved by the Court, the average cost per share will be less than $0.05.

The original complaint charges InfoSpace and its founder and Chairman, Naveen Jain, with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that between January 2000 and January 2001, Defendants disseminated false and misleading information concerning InfoSpace's actual FY 1999 and 2000 financial performance and Defendants' expectations concerning InfoSpace's FY 2001 revenue and earnings. In fact, neither InfoSpace's reported FY 1999 and FY 2000 results nor its projected FY 2001 performance were accurate. Defendants' public representations were the result of Defendants' efforts to manipulate InfoSpace's reported earnings and expected FY 2001 performance and were designed to (and did) allow: (i) Jain to sell millions of dollars of his own InfoSpace shares at artificially inflated prices; and (ii) allow Defendants to complete a series of acquisitions using shares of InfoSpace's artificially inflated stock as currency, including the October 2000 acquisition of Go2Net. On January 30, 2001, after Defendants had completed several acquisitions using inflated InfoSpace shares as currency, Defendants disclosed that, contrary to the representations made by them during 2000 that InfoSpace was experiencing strong revenue growth during 4Q99, and FY 2000 and that InfoSpace would continue to post strong revenue growth through FY 2001, InfoSpace would report no revenue growth or EPS for FY 2001, but rather would report declining revenue and a significant loss for the year. As Defendants began to reveal some of their improper conduct, including the fact that Defendants' projected revenues and earnings estimates were false, InfoSpace's shares fell to less than $6 per share, a 95% decline from their Class Period high of $138-1/2 per share.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: INSP
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: W.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 01-CV-0913
JUDGE: Hon. Thomas S. Zilly
DATE FILED: 06/19/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/26/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/30/2001
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. Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York)
    500 Fifth Avenue, Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York), NY 10110
    212.608.1900 212.719.4677 · info@lshllp.com
  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
  5. 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: W.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 01-CV-0913
JUDGE: Hon. Thomas S. Zilly
DATE FILED: 05/09/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/26/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/30/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Hagens Berman, LLP
    1301 Fifth Avenue Suite 2900, Hagens Berman, LLP, WA 98101
    206.623.7292 · info@hagens-berman.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. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date