Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/16/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 21, 2003

According to the docket posted, on April 16, 2004, the plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, and on June 18, 2004, the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On March 16, 2005, the Court entered the Order by U.s. District Judge Jeremy Fogel granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. That day, the Court further entered the Judgment in favor of the defendants.

The original complaint charges Ariba and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ariba is a spend-management software solutions provider. Ariba provides software, services and network access to enable corporations to evaluate and manage the cash costs associated with running their business. On January 15, 2003, the Company issued a press release entitled, "Ariba Provides Update on Accounting Review and Restatement of Financial Statements." The press release stated in part: "Ariba, Inc. announced today that it will restate its financial statements for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2001 and 2000 and for the quarters ended March 31, 2000 through June 30, 2002 as a result of an ongoing review of accounting matters." While Ariba's financial statements were admittedly false, the Company's top officers and directors took advantage of this and sold nearly $692 million worth of their Ariba shares to the unsuspecting public.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ARBA
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-277
JUDGE: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
DATE FILED: 01/21/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/11/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/15/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
  2. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
  3. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
  4. Green & Jigarjian LLP
  5. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  6. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
  7. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
  8. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
  9. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  10. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  11. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
  12. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
  13. The Emerson Firm
  14. Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-277
JUDGE: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
DATE FILED: 04/16/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/02/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/31/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
No Document Title Filing Date