According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended December 31, 2005, in June 2003, the Company, implementing the determination made by a special independent committee of the Board of Directors, elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against us and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants. The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the litigation as against those defendants is continuing. The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the class action cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1.0 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants. If recoveries totaling $1.0 billion or more are obtained by the class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied. In addition, the Company and any other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to the class members certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of their IPOs. Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon obtaining final approval by the Court. On September 1, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, directed that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be provided to class members, and scheduled a fairness hearing, at which objections to the proposed settlement will be heard. Thereafter, the Court will determine whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.
As summarized by the same SEC filing, on April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint, which superseded five virtually identical complaints that had been filed from July 24, 2001 to September 5, 2001, names as defendants the Company, two of our officers, and certain underwriters involved in our initial public offering of common stock (“IPO”). Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Company’s two named officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on October 9, 2002. On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on a motion to dismiss the complaint that had been filed by the Company, along with the three hundred plus other publicly-traded companies that have been named by various plaintiffs in substantially similar lawsuits. The Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the claim filed against it under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the claim filed against it under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as it denied the motions under this statute for virtually every other company sued in the substantially similar lawsuits.
The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus (the "Prospectus") that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted MatrixOne shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase MatrixOne shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.