Case Page

 

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

Filing Date: July 03, 2001

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, in September 2003, in connection with the possible settlement, the Company’s officers and directors who had entered tolling agreements with the plaintiffs as described above agreed to extend those agreements so that they would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized. In February 2004, the settlement received preliminary approval from the court. Upon notification of all class members of the settlement, the parties will seek final approval from the court.

As summarized by the Same SEC filing, in July 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering, or IPO, a number of other companies, or Issuers, individuals and IPO underwriters, were named as defendants in a series of class action shareholder complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Those cases are now consolidated under the caption, In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 91 MC 92. In October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the statute of limitations with respect to certain of the named officers and directors, including the Company’s, until September 30, 2003 and on the basis of this agreement, the Company’s officers and directors were dismissed from the lawsuit without prejudice. In February 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims against substantially all of the Issuers, including the Company, and denying the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims against many Issuers, including the Company. During the summer and fall of 2003, the Company, along with the substantial majority of Issuers, indirectly participated in discussions with the plaintiffs and the Company’s respective insurers regarding a tentative settlement of the lawsuit. The terms of the tentative settlement would provide for, among other things, a release of the Issuers and their officers and directors, including the Company, from all further liability resulting from plaintiffs’ claims and the assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the Issuers may have against their IPO underwriters. The tentative settlement also provides that, in the event that plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a guaranteed sum from the IPO underwriters, plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by each participating issuer’s insurer of a pro rata share of any shortfall in the plaintiffs’ guaranteed recovery. The Company entered into a non-binding memorandum of understanding reflecting the settlement terms described above.

The complaint alleges 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. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Robertson Stephens, and Merrill Lynch) had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of InterNAP shares issued in connection with the InterNAP IPO; and (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate InterNAP shares to those customers in the InterNAP IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional InterNAP shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: INAP
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-06084
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 07/03/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/29/1999
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. Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL)
    One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL), FL 33431
    561.750.3000 561.750.3364 ·
  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. Seeger Weiss LLP (New York)
    One William Street, Seeger Weiss LLP (New York), NY 10004
    212.584.0700 · info@seegerweiss.com
  6. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.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
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 01-CV-06084
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 05/10/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/29/1999
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 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