Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/26/2004 (Other)

Filing Date: July 26, 2002

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, on May 11, 2004, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals but withdrew the appeal on August 30, 2004. The case has concluded with no payments to the plaintiffs or their counsel by the Company or the Company’s insurance carriers.

As previously disclosed by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended: June 30, 2004, on September 27, 2003, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint, but allowed plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, which they did on October 31, 2003. On May 11, 2004, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The original complaint charges Insight and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Insight is a direct marketer of computers, hardware and software, primarily to small and medium-sized enterprises through a combination of outbound telemarketing, direct mail catalogs and advertising in magazines and other publications. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants represented that the Company would achieve sequential earnings per share ("EPS") growth in Q2 2002. The true facts, which were known by the defendants during the Class Period but were actively concealed by the defendants, were as follows: (a) That in April 2002, the defendants learned that the Company was not on track to achieve Q2 EPS growth or Q2 EPS of $0.31-$0.35; (b) That the Company's United Kingdom operations required a massive restructuring; (c) That the Company's purchase of Action plc in Q4 2001 had not been properly integrated into the Company's operations and moreover was suffering from material adverse trends; and (d) That on or about May 1, 2002, defendants decided internally to send senior executives from its recently acquired Comark acquisition to the Company's Action plc division to try to solve the division's problems, including the effect of the adverse trends (reduced demand, greater than projected operating expenses and declining market share) which defendants became aware of by April 2002. During the Class Period defendants sold over $10 million worth of their own Insight shares at prices as high as $28 per share, or double the price to which Insight shares dropped as Insight's true prospects began to reach the market. On July 17, 2002, Insight revealed that, contrary to prior assurances by defendants of Insight's continuing revenue and EPS growth, it would post sequential EPS declines, sending Insight's shares into a free fall.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Catalog & Mail Order)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NSIT
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: D. Arizona
DOCKET #: 02-CV-01407
JUDGE: Hon. Stephen M. McNamee
DATE FILED: 07/26/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/26/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix)
    2901 North Central Avenue - Suite 1000, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix), AZ 85012
    602.274.1100 602.274.1199 ·
  2. Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL)
    One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL), FL 33431
    561.750.3000 561.750.3364 ·
  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
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Arizona
DOCKET #: 02-CV-01407
JUDGE: Hon. Stephen M. McNamee
DATE FILED: 10/31/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/26/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  2. Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix)
    2901 North Central Avenue - Suite 1000, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC (Phoenix), AZ 85012
    602.274.1100 602.274.1199 ·
  3. Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross (Philadelphia) (former)
    1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross (Philadelphia) (former), PA 19102
    215-561-3600 215-561-3000 · bmgross@bernardmgross.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date