Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/02/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 31, 2001

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2006, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint. On October 2, 2006, the court ruled in our favor and entered a final order of dismissal of plaintiffs’ case. On October 27, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. Management believes that none of plaintiffs’ claims have merit, and intends to defend the appeal of the case vigorously.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in March 2002. In April 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On September 4, 2003, the court issued a ruling dismissing all but one of the plaintiffs’ allegations. The remaining allegation was based on the veracity of a public statement made by one of the Company’s former officers. In August 2004, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment as to the remaining allegation, which the court granted in September 2005.

On December 13, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner granting the motion to consolidate cases and appoint lead plaintiffs and approve selection of lead counsel. Actions pending in the District of Massachusetts or California were consolidated as part of the In re Art Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 01-cv-11731. The Low Group was appointed as lead plaintiffs and the court further appointed Stull, Stull & Brody and Weiss & Yourman as Co-Lead Counsel and Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP as Liaison Counsel.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between January 25, 2001 and April 2, 2001. Specifically, as alleged in the complaint, the Company publicly represented, in press releases and public interviews, that it was not subject to the negative trends in the software industry which were effecting the Company's competitors and that its strong revenue growth was not, and would not be, materially affected by the downturn in the technology sector. It is alleged that these statements were knowingly false and misleading because many Art Technology Group clients were technology companies that were negatively impacted by the widespread decrease in technology spending which was underway before the Class Period began, and that many of these customers could not afford to pay the Company for its products. On April 2, 2001, Art Technology Group issued a press release announcing that it will incur a loss of between $0.19 to $0.22 per share for the quarter ending March 30, 2001, which was well-below expectations. In response to this announcement, Art Technology Group's stock price dropped to $5.3125, or 55%, from the prior day's close of $12 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. Prior to the disclosure of the true facts about Art Technology Group's business, Art Technology Group insiders sold a total of over $8.7 million of their personally-held Art Technology Group stock.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ARTG
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: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 01-CV-07628
JUDGE: Hon. Terry J. Hatter
DATE FILED: 08/31/2001
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/25/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/02/2001
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. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  3. 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
  4. Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA)
    225 Broadway, Suite 1900, Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92010
    619.702.7350 619.702.7351 ·
  5. 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
  6. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  7. 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
  8. Moulton & Gans LLP
    133 Federal Street, Moulton & Gans LLP, MA 2110
    617.369.7979 ·
  9. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  10. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
    10940 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 2300, Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), CA 90024
    310.209.2468 ·
  11. 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: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 01-CV-11731
JUDGE: Hon. Terry J. Hatter
DATE FILED: 03/01/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/25/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/02/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    75 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
  2. 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
  3. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
    The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), NY 10126
    212.682.3025 212.682.3010 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date