Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/15/2004 (Other)

Filing Date: July 26, 2002

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For The Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2004, on April 1, 2004, the District Court issued an order granting the Company’s motion and dismissing in its entirety the plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. In the order, the District Court granted the plaintiffs fifteen days to file a further amended complaint that conformed to applicable law as well as the District Court’s ruling. The deadline for the plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint expired on April 16, 2004. The plaintiffs did not file a further amended complaint prior to the District Court’s deadline. In addition, on May 10, 2004, the plaintiffs consented to dismissal of the lawsuit and, in doing, waived all rights to appeal the dismissal.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, from July through September 2002, the Company and three of its then current officers were named in seven complaints filed by purported shareholders of the Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division, or the District Court. Each complaint sought certification as a class and monetary damages, and alleged that the Company and the named officers violated federal securities laws. On February 4, 2003, the District Court issued an order that consolidated all seven cases into one single case and appointed the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement, Louis Giannakokas and Norman K. Mielziner to serve as lead plaintiffs. On April 30, 2003, the plaintiffs filed with the District Court an amended, consolidated complaint, or the Amended Complaint. On July 31, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 16, 2003, the plaintiffs filed opposition papers to the motion to dismiss, and the Company filed a reply brief on October 16, 2003. On November 4, 2003, the District Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety. In so doing, the District Court granted the plaintiffs fifteen days to file a further amended complaint that conformed to applicable law as well as the District Court’s ruling. The plaintiffs subsequently obtained an extension of that fifteen day deadline. On December 5, 2003, the plaintiffs filed with the District Court their second amended complaint, or the Second Amended Complaint. In it, among other things, the plaintiffs reduced the class period by a total of eight months and eliminated numerous allegations that had been contained in the Amended Complaint. On January 5, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers to the motion on February 20, 2004. On March 19, 2004, the Company filed a brief in further support of its motion.

The original complaint alleges that Eclipsys and its three chief officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements during the Class Period. Contrary to their positive statements, defendants -- according to the complaint -- were in possession of materially adverse information which they failed to disclose. Specifically, during the Class Period, defendants trumpeted the large amount of new sales the Company was booking and the expansion of its sales force. In making these announcements, defendants knew or recklessly ignored that the Company was experiencing a decline in demand for its information technology and that it had failed to sufficiently increase its expenditures for research and development, costs necessary to correct operational problems at the platform-level of its technology. This fraudulent course of conduct allowed Eclipsys insiders, including
the named defendants, to sell over 388,500 shares and pocket in excess
of $9.69 million while privy to material adverse knowledge regarding the
Company's true financial status.On June 28, 2002, the Company shocked the market by announcing that instead of the profit that the Company had previously told the market to expect, the Company would report a loss of $0.07-0.10 per share due to fewer contracts closing. The price of Eclipsys stock tumbled nearly 50% on the announcement.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ECLP
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. Florida
DOCKET #: 02-CV-80697
JUDGE: Hon. Daniel T. K. Hurley
DATE FILED: 07/26/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/23/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/27/2002
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. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton)
    The Plaza, Suite 900, 5355 Town Center Road, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33486
    561.361.5000 ·
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 02-CV-80697
JUDGE: Hon. Daniel T. K. Hurley
DATE FILED: 12/05/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/23/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/27/2002
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. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton)
    5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33486
    561.361.5000 561.367.8400 ·
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton)
    The Plaza, Suite 900, 5355 Town Center Road, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33486
    561.361.5000 ·
  4. Vianale & Vianale LLP (former Boca Raton)
    The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town Center Road., Vianale & Vianale LLP (former Boca Raton), FL 33486
    561.391.4900 561.368.9274 · info@vianalelaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date