Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/17/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: May 14, 2003

On August 17, 2005, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss. On September 12, 2005, the defendant filed a Stipulation of Dismissal and the action was dismissed with prejudice.

On May 18, 2004, the Court entered the Memorandum of Decision and Order signed by U.S. District Judge Judith G. Dein granting the motion of Robert Coopersmith for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for Approval of his Selection of Lead Counsel. On December 17, 2004, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed, and on February 24, 2005, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing positive analyst reports recommending that investors purchase Razorfish stock. When issuing those reports, defendant failed to disclose significant, material conflicts of interest with respect to links between such positive recommendations and Lehman's obtaining and retaining investment banking business from Razorfish.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RAZF
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 #: 03-CV-10907
JUDGE: Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay
DATE FILED: 05/14/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/24/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/09/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 03-CV-10907
JUDGE: Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay
DATE FILED: 12/17/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/24/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/05/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    75 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
  2. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
No Document Title Filing Date