Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 02/28/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 27, 2003

According to the docket posted, on February 28, 2006, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal signed by U.S. District Judge Gerard E. Lynch. The settlement was approved. Further, on March 20, 2006, the Court further entered an Order awarding attorneys' fees in the amount of $775,000 from the Settlement Fund and reimbursement of expenses in an aggregate amount of $119,578.17 together with the interest earned.

By the Notice of Class Action, dated December 8, 2005, a hearing shall be held on February 10, 2006, to determine whether the proposed settlement, in the amount of $3,100,000, of the claims asserted by plaintiffs in this consolidated class action against Defendants Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Paul Johnson is fair, reasonable and adequate, and should be finally approved by the Court.

In a press release dated January 20, 2005, on January 19, 2005, U.S. District Judge Gerard E. Lynch certified a class of plaintiffs in a securities fraud lawsuit against investment bank Robertson Stephens, Inc. (currently a Bank of America unit) and Robertson Stephens managing director and senior equity research analyst Paul Johnson. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP is co-lead counsel to the newly certified plaintiff class. Patrick V. Dahlstrom of Pomerantz's Chicago office briefed and argued the class certification motion. In his class certification decision, Judge Lynch declared that class counsel had "ably and zealously represented the interests of the class."

On July 28, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with an extended class period. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion in September 2003. On January 8, 2004, the Court denied in part and granted in part defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court denied defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' securities fraud claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and granted defendants' motions to dismiss insider trading claims.

The original complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading analyst reports on Corvis, a maker of optical networking equipment, that contradicted defendant Johnson's privately held beliefs. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the market price of Corvis common stock was artificially inflated, maintained or stabilized during the Class Period. On January 9, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and the National Association of Securities Dealers charged Paul Johnson for issuing "Buy" ratings on Corvis to the public while privately advising a group of Robertson Stephens limited partnerships (in which Johnson had invested) to sell their Corvis shares. The SEC complaint also charged Johnson with issuing positive research reports on Redback Networks, Inc. and Sycamore Networks, Inc. in which Johnson praised proposed acquisitions by Redback and Sycamore of two private companies in which Johnson had undisclosed investments.

Note: The putative class action complaints filed in the Northern District of California have been transferred to the Southern District of New York for all purposes. Orders signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney about May 2003.


Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: CORV
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 #: 03-CV-0590
JUDGE: Hon. Gerard E Lynch
DATE FILED: 01/27/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/29/2001
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
  2. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
  3. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  4. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
  5. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
  6. Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 03-CV-0590
JUDGE: Hon. Gerard E Lynch
DATE FILED: 07/28/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/25/2001
  1. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
  3. Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP
  4. Weiss & Lurie (New York, NY)
  5. Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA)
  6. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date