Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/07/2003 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 25, 2002

On January 20, 2005, after additional extensive briefing and oral arguments, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the 24/7 Real Media and Interliant complaints with prejudice. On October 11, 2005, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the 24/7 Real Media case.

On December 9, 2002, the Court entered the Case Management Order #1 granting the motion to consolidate several cases under In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Media, Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation, 02-CV-3210 (MP). On March 13, 2003, a First Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on April 30, 2003. On July 1, 2003, the Court entered the Decision and Order signed by Judge Milton Pollack granting the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaints. On August 7, 2003, the Court entered the Judgment dismissing the consolidated amended complaints with prejudice and the case was closed. On August 12, 2003, the Court entered the Order denying the plaintiff’s move for reconsideration of this Court's 6/30/03 Decision and Order dismissing w/ prejudice the amended complaints in the 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (24/7) and Interliant, Inc. (Interliant) consolidated actions. On September 10, 2003, a Notice of Appeal was filed by the Lead Plaintiffs.

In October 2002, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Merrill Lynch Defendants’ motion to transfer all such cases to the Southern District of New York for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The cases were transferred to the Honorable Milton Pollack, Senior United States District Judge, and were coordinated under the caption In re Merrill Lynch Research Reports Securities Litigation, 02 MDL 1484.

The original Complaint alleges that to maintain and enhance Merrill Lynch's investment banking relationships with 24/7, defendants issued positive ratings on the Company which were materially misleading as they were inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private adverse assessments of 24/7. For example, defendants were repeatedly issuing a short and long-term accumulate rating on 24/7 despite Blodget's internal description of 24/7 as a "piece of (----)." On April 8, 2002, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced that a ten-month investigation had revealed that Merrill Lynch's "supposedly independent and objective investment advice was tainted and biased by the desire to aid Merrill Lynch's investment banking business." Merrill Lynch's ratings on 24/7 were among those challenged by the Attorney General.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Misc. Financial Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TFSM
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 #: 02-CV-3210
JUDGE: Hon. Thomas P. Griesa
DATE FILED: 04/25/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/18/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/09/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  2. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  3. 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 #: 02-CV-3210
JUDGE: Hon. Thomas P. Griesa
DATE FILED: 03/13/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/18/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/09/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4699 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  2. Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran
    1050 30th Street, NW, Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, DC 20007
    202.337.8000 202.337.8090 · contact@ftllaw.com
  3. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (former New York, NY)
    805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (former New York, NY), NY 10022
    212.687.1980 212.687.7714 · info@kaplanfox.com
  4. Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP
    275 Madison Avenue, Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP, NY 10016
    212-682-1818 · info@rabinlaw.com
  5. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    75 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date