Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 01/18/2005 (Other)

Filing Date: July 30, 2003

According to the latest docket posted, on November 16, 2004, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter granting the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with leave to amend the consolidated complaint within 60 days of this order. The plaintiffs did not amend their complaint. On January 18, 2005, the Court entered the Stipulation and Order dismissing the complaint in its entirety with prejudice, and the case was terminated. According to the Order, no party shall seek reimbursement from any other party of any fees, costs, expenses or damages.

As previously reported by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, orders designating a lead plaintiff and consolidating the federal class action complaints were issued by the U. S. District Court in late October 2003, and an amended consolidated class action complaint was filed in January 2004. On May 10, 2004, the U.S. District Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint without prejudice. A second amended class action complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in early July 2004. The Company’s motion to dismiss the second amended class action complaint was filed in August 2004, and is scheduled to be heard by the U.S. District Court in November 2004.

The original complaint charges Quest and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Quest provides application and information availability software solutions that
enhance the performance and reliability of e-business, enterprise and
custom applications and enable the delivery of information across the
enterprise. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants caused Quest's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. On July 23, 2003, Quest revealed that its 2002 and Q1 03
results were false when issued due to a "computational error" in
revenue recognition. The stock dropped below $9 per share on this
news.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: QSFT
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-1192
JUDGE: Hon. David O. Carter
DATE FILED: 07/30/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/30/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/23/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
    11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania), PA 19004
    610.668.7987 610.660.0450 · esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  2. Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA)
    225 Broadway, Suite 1900, Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92010
    619.702.7350 619.702.7351 ·
  3. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  4. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  5. 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
  6. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  7. Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA)
    10940 Wilshire Blvd - 24th Floor, Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA), CA 90024
    310.208.2800 310.209.2348 · info@wyca.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-1192
JUDGE: Hon. David O. Carter
DATE FILED: 07/12/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/30/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/23/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
    320 East 39th Street, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former), NY 10016
    212.983.9330 212.983.9331 · Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date