Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 07/26/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: October 03, 2002

On April 24, 2006, a Settlement Agreement was filed. According to the Agreement, the settlement fund is in the amount of $3 million. On April 26, 2006, the Court entered the Order preliminarily approving the settlement. On July 26, 2006, the Court entered the Final Order approving the settlement.

According to a press release dated October 3, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Sept. 14 certified a plaintiff class of Razorfish Inc. investors who allegedly bought stock in the high-technology concern in reliance on a market price for the instruments that was inflated by the defendants' misleading press reports and other malfeasance (Swack v. Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, D. Mass., Civil Action No. 02-11943-DPW, 9/14/05). Writing for the court, Judge Douglas P. Woodlock concluded that lead plaintiff Terry Swack is a "typical plaintiff" for Fed.R.Civ. P. 23 purposes. He said that even though Swack acquired her Razorfish stock directly from the issuer, she can adequately represent a class of investors "who for the most part purchased their shares" in the open market.

On April 18, 2993, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock consolidating all relating actions, appointing Terry Swack as lead plaintiff, and approving lead plainitff’s selection of lead counsel. On June 3, 2003, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss. Before any ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court allowed the plaintiffs to amend the complaint, and on October 20, 2003, a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. On September 21, 2004, the Court entered the Memorandum and Order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to defendants Credit Suisse and Mark Wolfenberger, and granted the motion as to defendant Elliot Rogers. On December 29, 2004, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class.

The original complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a series of favorable research reports on Razorfish that were materially false or misleading in that they did not disclose conflicts of interest of Credit Suisse, and in particular the practice of Credit Suisse to gain lucrative investment banking business in part by providing coverage and issuing favorable research reports on prospective investment banking customers. According to news reports, an investigation conducted by the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts uncovered "very troubling" internal Credit Suisse materials that "suggest . . . a pattern of breach of fiduciary duty" and which appear to have "treated investors like suckers". According to another news report, the Secretary of State has suggested that criminal charges be filed against Credit Suisse over its fraudulent stock research coverage.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Money Center Banks
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RAZF
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. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 02-CV-11943
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 10/03/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/14/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/20/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA)
    701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6860, Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC (Seattle WA), WA 98014
    206.521.0080 206.521.0166 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  2. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    75 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 02-CV-11943
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 10/20/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/24/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/04/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    75 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date