Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 11/26/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: November 20, 2003

On November 26, 2007, U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker signed the Order granting the motion for final approval of the Settlement, granting approval of the plan of allocation and granting an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 30, 2007, the Court approved preliminarily the proposed settlement and plan of allocation. The hearing on final approval of settlement is set for September 6, 2007.

On May 3, 2007, a Stipulation of Settlement was filed, establishing a settlement fund in the amount of $3,250,000 in cash.

According to the Order issued by U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, on August 17, 2006, the court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the ’33 Act and grants defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the ‘34 Act. Because plaintiffs have amended their claims four times but still have not satisfieAd the PSLRA’s heightened pleading requirements, plaintiffs’ claims under the ‘34 Act are hereby dismissed with prejudice. The parties are instructed to appear before the court to discuss what issues, if any, remain in this litigation on October 3, 2006.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2005, on October 11, 2005, plaintiffs filed their fourth consolidated amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the fourth consolidated amended complaint on December 9, 2005. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 8, 2006 and defendants’ reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss was filed on March 8, 2006. A hearing on the motion to dismiss took place on March 23, 2006 and an opinion will be issued at a later date.

As summarized by the same SEC filing, several similar class actions were consolidated on February 4, 2004 and a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel were appointed on March 25, 2004. On May 24, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising from allegations that during the Class Period, Portal recognized revenue improperly and failed to disclose declining demand for its products and services. The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on July 6, 2004 and the hearing on the motion was scheduled for September 30, 2004. On September 23, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and requested continuance of the hearing to allow them time to prepare a proposed amended complaint. The court allowed plaintiff 60 days to file a motion for leave to amend, along with the required proposed amendment and took the original hearing date off calendar. The lead plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and the proposed amended complaint were due to be filed by or about November 29, 2004. Lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 29, 2004. The second amended complaint purports to add a new plaintiff that may have purchased shares in, or traceable to, the September 2003 secondary offering and to add claims under Sections 11 and 12(a) of the Securities Act on the basis that the registration statement for the secondary offering contained allegedly material misstatements or omissions. The defendants moved to strike the second amended complaint on December 2, 2004. On December 7, 2004 the Court set a briefing schedule for the motion to strike. Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend on December 22, 2004 correcting their failure to file the motion concurrent with the proposed second amended complaint. Defendants filed an opposition to the motion for leave to amend on January 6, 2005. A hearing on defendants’ motion to strike on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend was held on January 27, 2005. On March 10, 2005, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend and terminated as moot defendants’ motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike the improperly filed consolidated second amended complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint on April 15, 2005. On May 19, 2005, plaintiffs filed their third consolidated amended complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint on June 2, 2005, and a hearing on this motion was conducted on July 7, 2005. On August 10, 2005, the Court issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint as to all asserted claims and allowing plaintiffs leave to file a fourth consolidated amended complaint on or before October 11, 2005.

The original Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 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 defendants issued numerous public statements concerning Portal's revenue growth, product and marketing initiatives, and increasing revenues and profits while failing to disclose that demand for the Company's products was materially declining. Prior to the disclosure of this adverse information to the market, the Company completed a public offering of Portal common stock raising over $56 million in net proceeds and the Individual Defendants, as well as other high-level executives of
Portal, sold their personally-held Portal common stock to the unsuspecting
public reaping proceeds of more than $4.8 million.

As alleged in the Complaint, the Class Period commences on May 20, 2003, the
date on which the Company issued a press release announcing its first quarter
financial results, for the period ending May 2, 2003 (the "May 2nd Press
Release"). In addition to announcing the Company's financial results, as
alleged in the Complaint, defendants represented in the May 2nd Press release,
among other things that: (a) "We are the only company in our market reporting
increasing revenues and quarter-to-quarter product license growth."; and (b)
that the Company would "return to pro forma profitability [excluding certain
acquisition costs] and positive cash flow operations within the current fiscal
year." Then, as alleged in the Complaint, in the June 2003 issue of Worldwide
Telecom, Portal announced that eircom, an Ireland-based provider of fixed
telecommunications, had successfully implemented Portal's convergent billing
platform, Infranet. On August 19, 2003, as alleged in the Complaint, Portal
issued a press release announcing its financial results for the second quarter
of 2003, the period ending August 1, 2003 (the "August 19th Press Release").
The Company reported revenues of $33.2 million for the second quarter. On
September 12, 2003, Portal announced that it had priced a public offering of
more than 22 million shares of its common stock, raising more than $56 million
for the Company. In connection with the offering, Portal filed a registration
statement with the SEC which included, among other things, positive
representations concerning the Company's business and its core product,
Infranet.

The Complaint further alleges that the statements referenced above, in addition to
others alleged in the Complaint, were each materially false and misleading when
made as they misrepresented and/or omitted the following adverse facts which
then existed and disclosure of which was necessary to make the statements made
not false and/or misleading, including: (a) that the Company's sales and
marketing efforts were not performing well and the Company was experiencing
declining demand for its products and services; (b) that the Company was
experiencing an adverse and material lengthening of product sales cycles and a
material increase in deferred revenues; (c) that due to continuing and severe
problems with the Company's core products, the Company was unable to service
its existing customers, causing additional erosion of the Company's revenue
streams; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' lacked a reasonable
basis for their earnings projections at all times.

The Class Period ends on November 13, 2003. On that date, Portal issued a press
release announcing that it expected net losses of $0.36 - 0.40 per share for
the third quarter fiscal 2004 versus prior earnings guidance of net profits of
$0.04 per share. Defendants cited contract delays and revenue recognition
deferrals. Market reaction to defendants' belated disclosures was swift and
severe. In after-hours trading on November 13, 2003, the price of Portal common
shares fell more than 42.5% to open at $8.77 per share on November 14, 2003,
and have decreased more than 51% from a Class Period high of $17.93 per share
reached less than a month before on October 15, 2003.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PRSF
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-5138
JUDGE: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker
DATE FILED: 11/20/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/20/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/13/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  2. 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
  3. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  4. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4699 · lawinfo@cmht.com
  5. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  6. Green & Jigarjian LLP
    235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, Green & Jigarjian LLP, CA 94104
    415.477.6700 415.477.6710 ·
  7. Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
    830 Third Avenue 10th Floor, Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP, NY 10022
    212.317.2300 ·
  8. 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
  9. 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 ·
  10. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  11. Wechsler Harwood, LLP.
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood, LLP., NY 10022
    212.935.7400 212.753.3630 · info@whesq.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-5138
JUDGE: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker
DATE FILED: 10/11/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/20/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/13/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. 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 ·
  3. 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/
  4. Green & Jigarjian LLP
    235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, Green & Jigarjian LLP, CA 94104
    415.477.6700 415.477.6710 ·
  5. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@lerachlaw.com
  6. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date