Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/14/2006 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: May 09, 2002

According to the Order and Final Judgment, entered on April 23, 2007, from U.S. District Judge Honorable James Ware of the U.S. District Court of Northern California, the case was settled. Additionally, an Order Awarding Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Attorneys Fees And Reimbursement Of Expenses as well as an Order Approving Plan Of Allocation Of Settlement Proceeds were also filed.

A Stipulation of Settlement and Release was filed on December 12, 2006. Defendants agreed to a settlement of $80,000,000. On December 21, 2006, the Court entered the Order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Order states that as a result of the Court's December 18, 2006 Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement, the Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint as moot.

On May 12, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint. The complaint was again amended when the plaintiffs filed a Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint on June 30, 2006. On August 16, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 6, 2006, the Honorable Judge James Ware granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to dismiss the complaint. Specifically, in regards to the Plaintiffs' allegations of loss prior to March 20, 2002, the Defendants' Motion is granted with prejudice. In regards to allegations of loss revealed by an April 25, 2002 disclosure, the Defendants' Motion is denied. The Plaintiffs have until May 12, 2006 to file an amended complaint addressing only losses subsequent to March 20, 2002.

The original complaint charges VeriSign and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company provides digital trust services that enable Web site owners, enterprises, communications service providers, e-commerce service providers and individuals to engage in secure digital commerce and communications. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants sought to artificially increase the Company's revenue and margins and to create the perception that its deferred revenue growth was derived organically. In fact, approximately 10% of the Company's revenue was derived from sales to small companies in which VeriSign had invested and from dubious "barter transactions." VeriSign's revenues and earnings derived from related parties were dubious at best. Specifically, whenever a two-way set of transactions occurs in which a company acts as both the lender and service provider, an investor lacks assurance as to whether the related parties would have made similar decisions regarding purchases in the absence of financing from that company. Accordingly, despite the Company's claims that such transactions were separately negotiated and recorded at terms the Company considered to be at arm's length and fair value, the revenue and earnings that VeriSign recognized from its relationship with these customers was not an accurate measure of the "real" demand for VeriSign's products. Equally dubious was the quality of the non-monetary portion of revenue recorded from reciprocal agreements. As part of their effort to boost the price of VeriSign stock, defendants misrepresented VeriSign's true prospects in an effort to conceal VeriSign's improper acts until they were able to sell at least $26 million worth of their own VeriSign stock and use VeriSign's shares to acquire companies in stock-for-stock transactions. In order to overstate revenues and assets, VeriSign violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and SEC rules by, among other things, engaging in improper barter transactions and affiliate sales. These transactions had the effect of dramatically overstating the Company's margins and financial statements. On the Company's partial disclosures on April 25, 2002, the Company's shares plummeted by more than 50%.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: VRSN
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 02-CV-2270
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 05/09/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/25/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/25/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Alfred G. Yates, Jr.
    429 Forbes Avenue, Alfred G. Yates, Jr. , PA 15219
    412.391.5164 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
    100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  3. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 02-CV-2270
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 06/30/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/25/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/25/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernard M. Gross
    1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600, Bernard M. Gross, PA 19102
    215.561.3600 215.561.3000 · bmgross@BernardMGross.com
  2. 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
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  4. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  5. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date