Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/07/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 14, 2005

According to a press release dated September 12, 2006, iPass, Inc. (NASDAQ: IPAS), a global provider of services that unify the management of remote and mobile connectivity and devices, today announced that a federal class action against the Company has been dismissed with prejudice. The case, In re iPass, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C 05-00228 MHP, was pending in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, and involved allegations that the company and several of its officers and directors had violated the federal securities laws. In a ruling issued on September 6, 2006, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco found that the complaint fell short of the requirements for setting forth a claim under the federal securities laws. The court entered a final judgment on September 7, 2006. The effect of this order is to terminate the federal class action litigation. The plaintiffs have until October 10, 2006 to appeal the ruling to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On February 28, 2006, the Honorable Judge Marilyn Hall Patel granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs are required to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on March 30, 2006.

The original class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of iPass, Inc., to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that at all relevant times, iPass purported to provide "simple, secure and manageable connectivity services" by connecting mobile workers' computers to the Web through partnerships with local Internet service providers using "narrowband" telephone dial-up access. With high-speed broadband access to the Internet getting cheaper and more common among consumers, it was vitally important to iPass that it make the transition from "narrow band" dial-up service to broadband service, and that the transition be executed properly.

More specifically, this complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose a major operational snafu that occurred in connection with defendants' attempt to expand the Company's broadband service offerings and that this snafu, which hindered access to the iPass service, resulted in the loss of a material number of customers, and a concomitant decline in the Company's revenue, earnings, and growth prospects. Before investors found out about the snafu, and its effect on iPass's business, Company insiders, who knew of the snafu and its materially adverse effects on the Company's business but did not let on, sold more than 170,000 shares of their personally held iPass securities at prices within a one-week period between $10.94 to $12.16 for proceeds well in excess of $2 million. Upon disclosure of the snafu, on June 30, 2004, iPass shares fell to $6.91.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: IPAS
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 #: 05-CV-00228
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel
DATE FILED: 01/14/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/22/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/30/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  4. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  5. 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
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 05-CV-00228
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel
DATE FILED: 03/30/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/22/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/30/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP
    595 Market Street, Suite 2300, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP, CA 94105-2835
    800.778.1822 415.777.5189 · info@gbcsf.com
  3. Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy
    265 Llwyds Lane, Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy, FL 32963
    561.231.4202 ·
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
    355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP , CA 90071
    213.617.9007 213.617.9185 · info@milbergweiss.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date