Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/08/2004 (Other)

Filing Date: November 10, 2003

According to a press release dated June 9, 2004, the amended consolidated complaint in the securities class action lawsuits filed against the Company and two of its senior executives in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs without prejudice to the plaintiffs' ability to re-file a complaint. The Company and its insurers made no payment in connection with the dismissal of these lawsuits and have no obligation to make payments in the future.

The original complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Defendants issued false and
misleading statements and had a duty to correct such statements concerning
Boston Communications' relationship with Verizon Wireless. In particular, analysts had raised concerns regarding the company's ability to
maintain relationships with its primary customers, which accounted for the
majority of the Company's revenue. Moreover, such concerns included the
propensity for its customers to take services outsourced to Boston
Communications, in-house. To allay investor fears concerning Boston
Communications's customer concentration, the Company attempted to reassure
investors that contract negotiations with Verizon Wireless, and other
customers, were continuing as planned, despite a company policy not to do so.

The complaint further alleges that on July 16, 2003, after the market had closed, Boston Communications announced
the truth about its contract negotiations with Verizon. The Company stated that
its contract with Verizon is scheduled, according to its terms, to be
renegotiated in 2003. The Company is currently in contract discussions with
Verizon. The terms and conditions, including the length of the contract and
pricing have not yet been determined. Verizon has also requested that Boston
Communications provide support services to assist Verizon in testing its own
internal prepaid platform in 2004 which could potentially displace prepay
services currently being provided by Boston Communications. None of the
Company's contracts are exclusive and its carrier customers have and continue
to use and/or test competing products in certain markets. The market reacted swiftly to this news, with the Company's stock falling 39%,
or $8.46 from a closing price of $21.16 on July 16, 2003 to close at $12.70 on
July 17, 2003.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BCGI
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-12211
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 11/10/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/12/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/16/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL)
    One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL), FL 33431
    561.750.3000 561.750.3364 ·
  2. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  3. 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
  4. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  5. 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
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 03-CV-12211
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 03/22/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/12/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/16/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  2. 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