Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/03/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 18, 2002

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, in June, July and August 2002, Perot Systems and certain individuals were named as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits that allege violations of Rule 10b-5, and, in some of the cases, common law fraud. These suits allege that the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission contained material misstatements or omissions of material facts with respect to its activities related to the California energy market. All of these eight cases were consolidated in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division in the case of Vincent Milano v. Perot Systems Corporation. On October 19, 2004, the court dismissed the case with leave for plaintiffs to amend. In December 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. In March 2006, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice.

The original complaint charges Perot Systems Corp. and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants omitted to disclose crucial facts regarding risky business practices in which Perot Systems was engaged in order to try to obtain new consulting business and generate additional revenues. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Perot Systems had disclosed crucial proprietary information regarding the architecture of California's power grid that could be used to cause artificial congestion on the system to power trader Reliant, that Perot Systems faces substantial potential legal liability due to the possibility that its improper disclosures of proprietary information enabled power traders to exploit such weaknesses in California's power grid for their own profit, and that Perot Systems did not have in place sufficient management controls to prevent its personnel from using confidential information obtained in the course of its consulting work as a selling point in trying to obtain lucrative consulting business. The complaint further alleges that when Wall Street learned of these practices after California State Sen. Joseph Dunn unearthed a Perot Systems sales presentation mapping out strategies to exploit weaknesses and loopholes in the California power grid, Perot Systems' stock tumbled 19% on June 5, 2002
and an additional 11.3% to close at $12.90 on June 6, 2002, down from its class period high of $85.75.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PER
Company Market: New York SE
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. Texas
DOCKET #: 02-CV-01269
JUDGE: Hon. Sidney A. Fitzwater
DATE FILED: 06/18/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/02/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/07/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.889.3700 · info@abbeygardy.com
  2. Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates (Boca Raton, FL)
    2255 Glades Road Suite 421A, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates (Boca Raton, FL), FL 33431
    561.750.3000 ·
  3. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  5. 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: N.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 02-CV-01269
JUDGE: Hon. Sidney A. Fitzwater
DATE FILED: 12/20/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/02/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/06/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  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. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  5. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Bala Cynwyd)
    273 Montgomery Ave. Suite 202, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Bala Cynwyd), PA 19004
    610.660.8000 610.660.8080 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  6. Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York)
    500 Fifth Avenue, Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP (former New York), NY 10110
    212.608.1900 212.719.4677 · info@lshllp.com
  7. Susman, Godfrey LLP (Dallas)
    4100 Bank of America, 901 Main Street, Susman, Godfrey LLP (Dallas), TX 75202
    214.754.1908 · mevans@susangodfrey.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date