Case Page

 

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

Filing Date: June 15, 2001

According to Avenue A, Inc.’s (now aQuantive) Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, in June 2003, a proposed settlement of the litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants in the coordinated actions, the issuer officers and directors named as defendants, and the issuers’ insurance companies. Avenue A and Razorfish conditionally approved the proposed partial settlement in the Avenue A action and Razorfish action, respectively. The stipulation of settlement for the release of claims against the issuer defendants, including Avenue A and Razorfish, was submitted to the court in June 2004. On February 15, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the settlements in the coordinated actions contingent on specified modifications. On August 31, 2005, the court issued a preliminary order further approving the modifications to the settlement and certifying the settlement classes. A settlement fairness hearing has been set for April 24, 2006. Following the hearing, if the court determines that the settlement is fair to the class members, the settlement will be approved. There can be no assurance that this proposed settlement would be approved and implemented in its current form, or at all.

As disclosed by the same SEC filing, in June 2001, substantially similar actions have been filed concerning the initial public offerings for more than 300 different issuers, and these cases have been coordinated as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21MC92. The consolidated amended complaints in the Avenue A and Razorfish actions seek unspecified damages on behalf of purported classes of purchasers of Avenue A’s and Razorfish’s common stock. In the Avenue A action, the alleged class period is February 28, 2000 to December 6, 2000. In the Razorfish action, the alleged class period is April 26, 1999 to December 6, 2000. Claims against the named directors and officers of Avenue A and against certain of the named directors and officers of Razorfish have been dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation. On July 15, 2002, Avenue A, Razorfish, and the other issuer defendants filed a motion to dismiss the litigation. Certain of Razorfish’s directors and officers joined in the motion. On February 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying Razorfish’s motion to dismiss but granting the motion to dismiss of Razorfish’s directors and officers; and granting Avenue A’s motion to dismiss the claims against it under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and denying Avenue A’s motion to dismiss the claims against it under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about February 28, 2000, Avenue A commenced an initial public offering of 5,250,000 shares of common stock (excluding the over-allotment option of 787,500 shares) at an offering price of $24.00 per share. In connection therewith, Avenue A filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) Morgan Stanley had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Morgan Stanley allocated to those investors material portions of Avenue A shares issued in connection with the Avenue A IPO; and (ii) Morgan Stanley had entered into agreements with customers whereby Morgan Stanley agreed to allocate Avenue A shares to those customers in the Avenue A IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Avenue A shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. By virtue of this manipulation, Morgan Stanley was able to inflate the trading price of Avenue A's shares after the initial offering to a high of $89 per share on February 29, 2000. At its $72.00 closing price on February 29, 2000, Avenue A had a market capitalization approaching $4 billion - despite its history of millions of dollars of operating losses. Thereafter, the demand for the shares, which had been artificially created by Morgan Stanley, virtually disappeared, with Avenue A shares declining steadily to $6.875 per share on July 11, 2000. On June 12, 2001, Avenue A common stock closed at $1.55 per share.

NOTE: Avenue A, Inc. and Razorfish, Inc. are now known as Avenue A/Razorfish, the digital advertising agency of aQuantive Inc. Avenue A/Razorfish provides the full range of services, from strategic planning, Web design, media buying, and campaign analysis to ad serving, search engine marketing, e-mail marketing, and creative services. It targets customers residing in the financial services, pharmaceutical, retail, technology, and travel sectors.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Advertising
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AVEA
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-05446
JUDGE: Hon. Richard M. Berman
DATE FILED: 06/15/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/28/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/11/2000
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. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-05446
JUDGE: Hon. Richard M. Berman
DATE FILED: 07/10/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/28/2000
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