Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 02/22/2008 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 21, 2003

According to a press release dated February 25, 2008, more than six months after an appeals court remanded the case, citing inadequate class notification, a district court judge has again approved a $35 million settlement between Veritas Software Corp. and disgruntled shareholders. Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said Friday that the settlement was fair and adequate. She also awarded Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins about $6.5 million in fees and expenses for its work as the lead plaintiffs' counsel. The class, for terms of the settlement, includes everyone who bought or acquired Veritas securities between Jan. 3, 2001, and Jan. 16, 2003. The court previously approved a settlement in the case in Nov. 15, 2005. However, a shareholder appealed the approval of the plan allocation, among other things.

In a press release dated August 6, 2007, notice of a proposed $35 million settlement of class securities charges over an alleged financial fraud scheme at Veritas Software Corp. did not meet 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act requirements, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded July 25, resolving a question of first impression (In re Veritas Software Corp. Securities Litigation (Petrone v. Malone), 9th Cir., Nos. 05-17393, 06-15435, 7/25/07). Vacating and remanding, the appeals court said the estimated $0.25 per share recovery set forth in the notice was based on the "undisclosed assumption that only a fraction of class members"--43 percent--"would actually file claims."

On March 9, 2006, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Order on the Motion for Attorney Fees.

By the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, signed on November 15, 2005, by U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney, the Court approves the settlement set forth in the Stipulation, certifies the Settlement Class, and discharges all Released Claims against all Released Persons.

In a press release dated April 8, 2005, Veritas Software Corp., which is being acquired by Symantec Corp., has set aside $35 million to settle a class-action lawsuit, according to a twice-delayed filing submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday. In its annual report, the Mountain View, Calif.-based storage software maker said a U.S. court on March 18 tentatively approved a settlement of suits that accused Veritas officers and directors of making misleading statements about the firm's fiscal results in 2000, 2001 and 2002.

On July 21, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On December 10, 2003, the Court entered the Order granting the motions to dismiss with leave to amend. On January 16, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint and the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint. On May 19, 2004, the Court entered the Order granting the motions to dismiss with leave to amend. On June 30, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint and the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss. On January 20, 2005, a letter was filed in the Court advising the Court that the case has settled through mediation conducted on January 18, 2005. On February 18, 2005, a Stipulation of Settlement was filed.

The original complaint charges VERITAS and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. VERITAS is a software storage company that provides data protection, storage management and disaster recovery software. The complaint alleges that on January 17, 2003, the Company announced the restatement of its 2000 and 2001 financial statements as a result of its improper accounting for transactions with AOL Time Warner in 2000. The release stated in part: "(t)he transactions involved in a $50 million software purchase by AOL and a $20 million advertising services purchase from AOL." While VERITAS' financial statements were admittedly false and its stock price artificially inflated, the Company's top officers and directors took advantage of this and sold nearly $15 million worth of their VERITAS shares to the unsuspecting public.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: VRTS
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-00283
JUDGE: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
DATE FILED: 01/21/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/24/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/16/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernard M. Gross
  2. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
  3. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
  4. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
  5. Green & Jigarjian LLP
  6. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  7. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
  8. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
  9. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
  10. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  11. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
  12. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
  13. The Emerson Firm
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-00283
JUDGE: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
DATE FILED: 06/30/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/03/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/16/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 · info@csgrr.com/
  2. Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, LLP
    401 B Street, Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, LLP, CA 92101
    619.699.2700 619.236.1040 ·
  3. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  4. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  5. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
    100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  6. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date