Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/06/2009 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 06, 2002

According to a Press Release dated December 23, 2002, the complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about February 14, 2000, Diversa
commenced an initial public offering of 7,250,000 of its shares of common
at an offering price of $ 24 per share (the "Diversa IPO"). In connection
therewith, Diversa filed with the SEC a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus (the "Prospectus"). The complaint further
alleges that
the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that: (i) the Underwriter Defendants had
and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors
exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors
material portions of the Diversa shares issued in connection with the
IPO; and (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with
customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate Diversa
to those customers in the Diversa IPO in exchange for which the customers
to purchase additional Diversa shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices. In addition, the complaint alleges that certain of the Underwriter
Defendants improperly utilized their analysts, who were compromised by
undisclosed conflicts of interest, to artificially inflate or maintain the
of Diversa stock.


Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: DVSA
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-9699
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 12/06/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/06/2000
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  4. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
  5. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available