Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/09/2004 (Other)

Filing Date: October 30, 2002

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K For the fiscal year ended January 31, 2005, on February 19, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from the memorandum and order granting the motion to dismiss all claims in their entirety. On February 8, 2005, the United States Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, six purported securities class action lawsuits, all alleging nearly identical claims, were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On April 3, 2003, the Court consolidated these complaints into one action captioned: In re SeaChange International, Inc., et al. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 02-12116-DPW. On May 16, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint (the “Complaint”). On July 18, 2003, SeaChange and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in their entirety, with prejudice. The lead plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed on September 12, 2003, and the defendants’ reply memorandum was filed on October 8, 2003. A hearing on the motion to dismiss took place on January 16, 2004. On February 6, 2004, Judge Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a memorandum granting the motion to dismiss all claims asserted against the Company and the individual defendants, and an order of dismissal was entered by the court on February 9, 2004.

The original Complaint allege that the registration statement and prospectus issued by SeaChange in connection with its stock offering completed on January 31, 2002 contained statements that were materially inaccurate. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a false and misleading prospectus on or about January 29, 2002. As alleged in the Complaint, at all relevant times, SeaChange purported to be a leading developer, manufacturer and marketer of video storage systems which purportedly automate the management and distribution of video streams, such as movies and other feature presentations and advertisements. The Complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company was unable to compete effectively due to its inability to provide server systems large enough to meet the needs of cable companies located in major metropolitan areas and that the Company's products were dependent on technology, developed and patented by a key competitor, as to which SeaChange did not have proprietary rights.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Hardware
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SEAC
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-12116
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 10/30/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/09/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/30/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, 42 Street)
    60 East 42 Street, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, 42 Street), NY 10021
    212.687.6655 ·
  2. 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
  3. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  4. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  5. Law Offices of Robert P. Sugarman
    50 Charles Linbergh Boulevard, Law Offices of Robert P. Sugarman, NY 11553
    516.390.4749 ·
  6. 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 ·
  7. Moulton & Gans LLP
    133 Federal Street, Moulton & Gans LLP, MA 2110
    617.369.7979 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 02-CV-12116
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 05/16/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/09/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/30/2002
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. 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