Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/10/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 30, 2001

As reported by the Company’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, the parties settled the matter on terms that will not require a payment by any of the defendants, inasmuch as the settlement consideration will be paid entirely by insurance proceeds. In an order dated June 10, 2004, the court approved this settlement.

By the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, a settlement hearing will be held on June 10, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge, at the United States Courthouse, Western District of Washington, 9th Floor Courtroom, 1010 South Fifth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104 (the “Settlement Hearing”). The purpose of the Settlement Hearing will be to determine: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the sum of $1,185,000 in cash, plus accrued interest, should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class, and therefore whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds (the “Plan of Allocation”) is fair and equitable to the Class Members; and (3) whether the application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees, expenses and interest should be approved. The Court may adjourn or continue the Settlement Hearing without further notice to the Class.

According to the docket, on May 3, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and Amended Complaint, and on July 12, 2002, defendant Onyx Software Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated and amended complaint. On February 20, 2003, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs then filed a First Consolidated and Amended Complaint, and on March 1, 3004, the a Stipulation of Settlement was filed.

The original complaint charges Onyx and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Jan. 19, 2001, Onyx announced the acquisition of Revenue Lab and, after the close of the market, hosted a conference call to discuss the acquisition and the Company's business and prospects. Later, Onyx reported favorable, but false, financial results. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Onyx made misleading statements about its business and issued false and misleading financial results, causing its stock to be artificially inflated. As a result of this inflation, Onyx was able to complete a secondary offering of 2.5 million shares at $13.50 per share, raising net proceeds of $31.5 million on Feb. 7, 2001. Then, on April 3, 2001, just weeks after this offering was completed, Onyx revealed that its 1stQ01 results would be sharply lower than the market had been led to expect with revenues of only $26-$27 million and a large loss. The stock dropped below $3 per share on this news. Later, on Aug. 10, 2001, after the market closed, defendants revealed that Onyx's 4thQ00 results had been materially misstated and would have to be restated. After this announcement, Onyx's stock price dropped to as low as $3.70 on Aug. 13, 2001 compared to the Class Period high of $17.25.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ONXS
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-01346
JUDGE: Hon. Robert S. Lasnik
DATE FILED: 08/30/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/10/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/03/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (CA)
    425 California Street, Suite 2025, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (CA), CA 94104
    415.433.3200 415.433.6382 ·
  2. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  3. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
    P.O. Box 25438, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR), AR 72221-5438
    501.312.8500 501.312.8505 ·
  4. 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 ·
  5. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA)
    701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA), WA 98014
    206.521.0080 206.521.0166 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  6. Hagens Berman, LLP
    1301 Fifth Avenue Suite 2900, Hagens Berman, LLP, WA 98101
    206.623.7292 · info@hagens-berman.com
  7. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  8. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  9. Mark McNair
    1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 800, Mark McNair , DC 20006
    703.273.3070 · wmmcnair@justice4investors.com
  10. 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
  11. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Seattle, WA)
    1001 Fourth Avenue - Suite 3200, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Seattle, WA), WA 98154
    206.839.0730 ·
  12. Rabin & Peckel LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, Rabin & Peckel LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@rabinlaw.com
  13. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  14. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. (New York, Former Office)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. (New York, Former Office), NY 10016
    212.686.1060 212.202.3827 · info@rosenlegal.com
  15. 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-01346
JUDGE: Hon. Robert S. Lasnik
DATE FILED: 04/21/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/23/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/24/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego)
    12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (former San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Hagens Berman, LLP
    1301 Fifth Avenue Suite 2900, Hagens Berman, LLP, WA 98101
    206.623.7292 · info@hagens-berman.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date