Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/15/2008 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 12, 2004

On March 4, 2008, the Order Approving Final Accounting; Terminating Settlement Administration; And Discharging Lead Counsel, Lead Plaintiff And The Claims Administrator From Further Duties In Connection Therewith was signed.

By the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal signed by U.S. District Judge Bernard Zimmerman on December 8, 2005, the Court hereby grants final approval to the Stipulation of Settlement and finds that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Class as a whole. The Class Action is dismissed with prejudice.

According to a press release dated June 27, 2005, Micromuse Inc. said that it has agreed to pay an undisclosed amount to settle a securities class action lawsuit against it and a number of current and former officers, as well as a related federal shareholder derivative lawsuit. The cases were related to its restated financial reports filed May 17. The software provider said the payment will have no material adverse financial impact and will be covered largely by its insurers. Micromuse said none of the parties connected with the lawsuits admitted liability and that it didn't make any admission of wrongdoing. The settlement must receive court approvals, said Micromuse.

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-K For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2004, between January 12, 2004 and March 5, 2004, seven securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. In July 2004, the District Court consolidated the various actions, named Massachusetts Laborer’s Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and appointed the law firm of Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco, Burt & Pucillo as lead plaintiff’s counsel. In September 2004, lead plaintiff Massachusetts Laborer’s Pension Fund filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock. The alleged class period is January 18, 2001 through May 18, 2004. The consolidated amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and asserts causes of action for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, arising out of the Company’s restatement of its previously issued financial statements for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2001 and 2002 and for the quarters ended December 31, 2000 through June 30, 2003, and the Company’s adjustment of its preliminary consolidated financial statement information for the quarter and fiscal year ended September 30, 2003, as initially announced on October 29, 2003, and the Company’s adjustment of preliminary financial information for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as announced on February 10, 2004. On November 8, 2004, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

The original complaint alleges violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants knowingly or recklessly issued materially false and misleading financial statements that misrepresented the Company's earnings and shareholder equity. The complaint also alleges that during this period, Company insiders sold Micromuse stock for proceeds of approximately $174 million.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on December 30, 2003 Micromuse announced the filing of its annual report on Form 10-K would be delayed pending completion of an internal inquiry, primarily regarding accounting for accrued expenses and expense recognition, and that the Company expected the inquiry to lead to a restatement of financial results for the fiscal years ending September 20, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In reaction to this announcement, the price of Micromuse common stock dropped by 12.4%, from a closing price of $6.90 on December 29, 2003, and closed the day down 4% at $6.59 on volume ten times greater than average.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MUSE
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 #: 04-CV-00136
JUDGE: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 01/12/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/20/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/29/2003
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. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  3. 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
  4. 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 ·
  5. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  6. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  7. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (former New York, NY)
    805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (former New York, NY), NY 10022
    212.687.1980 212.687.7714 · info@kaplanfox.com
  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 (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  10. 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 ·
  11. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  12. 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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-00136
JUDGE: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 09/07/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/18/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/17/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (CA)
    425 California Street, Suite 2025, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (CA), CA 94104
    415.433.3200 415.433.6382 ·
  2. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
    One Liberty Square, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), MA 2109
    617.542.8300 617.230.0903 · info@bermanesq.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date