Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/26/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 22, 2002

On September 5, 2007, the Court issued the Opinion and Order No. 95140. According to the Order, U.S. District Judge John F. Keenan certified the class action and approved the settlement, approved the Plan of Allocation and finalized the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. On September 19, 2007, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment for In re Merrill Lynch Research Reports Securities Litigation, 02 MDL 1484.

According to the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Actions for In re Merrill Lynch Research Reports Securities Litigation, 02 MDL 1484, dated March 19, 2007, this case, In re Merrill Lynch & Co. Internet Capital Group, Inc. Research Reports Sec. Litig., 02-CV-3050, is part of a proposed settlement of $125 million in cash. A settlement hearing will be held before the Honorable John F. Keenan, United States District Judge of the Southern District of New York to determine whether the settlement should be approved.

On December 23, 2002, the Court entered the Case Management Order #1 consolidating several similar actions that were filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Internet Capital Inc. The action is now being handled under In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Internet Capital Group, Inc. Research Reports Securities Litigation, 02-CV-3050(MP). On March 13, 2003, and Amended Complaint was filed, and on December 8, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaints with prejudice. On June 2, 2006, the Court entered the Minute Order signed by Judge Michael B. Mukasey administratively closing the case pursuant to Memorandum from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts dated June 15th, 1973.

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 Complaint alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by the issuance of analyst reports regarding Internet Capital which recommended the purchase of Internet Capital common stock and which set price targets for Internet Capital common stock without any reasonable factual basis. Furthermore, when issuing their Internet Capital reports, defendants failed to disclose significant, material conflicts of interest which they had, in light of their use of Blodget’s reputation and his Internet Capital analyst reports, to obtain investment banking business for Merrill Lynch. Furthermore, in issuing their Internet Capital reports, in which they were recommending the purchase of Internet Capital stock, defendants failed to disclose material, non- public, adverse information which they possessed about Internet Capital as well as their true opinion about Internet Capital.

Further, the Complaint charges that during the Class Period, defendants'
initiation of coverage and its rating and reports on Internet Capital
were not based on independent, objective analyses but instead were
biased and tilted in the Company's favor to enable Merrill Lynch to
maintain and enhance its lucrative investment banking business
relationship with this important client. The Complaint charges that
defendants' positive public statements about Internet Capital were
inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private negative
assessments. For example, while repeatedly reiterating an
Accumulate/Buy (2-1) rating, defendants internally labeled Internet
Capital stock "a disaster." Furthermore, defendants concealed from the
public that although Merrill Lynch technically had five ratings, it had
a policy and practice of issuing only its top three ratings. During the
relevant time herein, defendant never issued a reduce or sell rating on
any Internet company. Indeed, during the Class Period, even as market
conditions changed, defendants repeatedly reissued an Accumulate/Buy
rating on Internet Capital, thus reassuring investors about their
continued confidence in the Company. As a result of defendants' false
and misleading statements, the market price of Internet Capital common
stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ICGE
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-03050
JUDGE: Hon. Sidney H. Stein
DATE FILED: 04/22/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/30/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/08/2000
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. 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-03050
JUDGE: Hon. Sidney H. Stein
DATE FILED: 03/13/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/30/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/08/2000
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. Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP
    601 California Street - Suite 1400, Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP, CA 94104
    415.981.4800 ·
  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. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.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
  6. 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
No Document Title Filing Date