Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/11/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 15, 2005

According to a press release dated April 14, 2006, the court dismissed plaintiffs' action, concluding that defendants' alleged misstatements constituted puffery or were protected by the bespeaks caution doctrine and that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter. The court reluctantly granted plaintiffs leave to re-plead, observing that PI's ultimate failure despite defendants' cautious optimism and PI's apparent initial success in raising eSpeed's revenue did not entitle eSpeed's investors to use federal securities law as a "scheme of investor's insurance."

The original purported class action complaint was filed against eSpeed, Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. and certain affiliated entities, as well as certain of its officers, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of eSpeed, alleging that eSpeed made "material false positive statements during the class period" and violated certain provisions of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and certain rules and regulations thereunder.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the defendants touted eSpeed as an unmitigated success story, a company which had achieved record revenues and earnings and, most importantly, a company that had established its infrastructure and business model as an unqualified success in the high volume automated trading of government securities and foreign exchange. In repeated press releases, the defendants represented that the eSpeed business model was in place and performing as anticipated. The true facts were that the business model was not working, and eSpeed was losing market share to its principle competitor, ICAP Plc, and its BrokerTec division. In fact, eSpeed did not have a viable business model. This was revealed on July 1, 2004 when defendants were forced to admit that revenues, earnings and market share were decreasing, that its business plan was not working, that it was being forced to develop a new business plan and pricing structure, and its competitive efforts with respect to ICAP were not successful. In the two trading days following this announcement, eSpeed shares dropped more than $6 per share on trading volume of over 9 million shares, a loss in market value for the Company of almost $350 million. As a result of the material false positive statements made during the Class Period, class members purchased eSpeed shares at inflated prices, and as a result were damaged thereby.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Consumer Financial Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ESPD
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 05-CV-2091
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 02/15/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/12/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/01/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C.
    60 Park Avenue, 21st Floor, Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., NY 10022
    212.838.3221 · gray@cjgraylaw.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. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP (Milwaukee)
    3181 South 27th Street, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP (Milwaukee), WI 53215
    866.264.3995 414.482.8001 · info@murrayfrank.com
  4. Paskowitz & Associates
    60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, Paskowitz & Associates, NY 10165
    212.685.0969 212.685.2306 · classattorney@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 05-CV-2091
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 09/27/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/20/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/01/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Paskowitz & Associates
    60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, Paskowitz & Associates, NY 10165
    212.685.0969 212.685.2306 · classattorney@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date