According to the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, on August 10, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A consolidated amended class action complaint, In re Bottomline Technologies Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, was filed on April 20, 2002. The amended complaint supersedes the class action complaint filed against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 10, 2001. In July 2002, Bottomline and the individual defendants joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss, which challenged the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs’ claims. The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and individual defendants named in similar lawsuits. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the court heard oral argument on the motion in early November 2002. On February 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss as to Bottomline. In addition, in early October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed from this case without prejudice. A special litigation committee of the board of directors of Bottomline authorized Bottomline to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and their insurers. The parties have negotiated a settlement, which is subject to approval by the court. On February 15, 2005, the court issued an Opinion and Order preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement agreement. If the settlement is not approved, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this amended complaint. We do not currently believe that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
The complaint alleges violations of 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) 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 Bottomline shares issued in connection with the Bottomline IPO; and (ii) Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with customers whereby Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Bottomline shares to those customers in the Bottomline IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Bottomline shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. As alleged in the complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public offerings.