Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 08/10/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 12, 2003

On August 10, 2005, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal approving the settlement. The Court further entered the Orders awarding attorneys’fees and reimbursement of expenses and approving the plan of allocation of settlement proceeds.

According to a press release dated April 29, 2005, a Settlement Hearing will be held on July 25, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., before the Honorable Richard M. Berman, United States District Judge, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, Courtroom 706, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York. The Hearing is to consider a settlement of certain litigation on behalf of the Class defined above. The purpose of the Hearing is to determine, among other things: whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Action for the sum of $5,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate.

On April 12, 2005, the Court issued the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Approving Form and Manner of Notice as entered in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated March 11, 2005. According to the Summary Notice also dated April 12, a Settlement Hearing will be held on July 25, 2005, to determine, among other things, whether the proposed settlement of claims in the Action for the sum of $5,000,000 should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate.

The lawsuit alleges, among other matters, that during the class period, UBS Warburg distributed research reports written by former UBS Warburg Senior Telecommunications Analyst that were false and misleading because they maintained a "buy" rating on Interspeed stock while, at the same time, the Analyst was privately sending e-mails to UBS personnel indicating that he believed that Interspeed stock should be shorted. The lawsuit also charges that the Analyst’s research reports were false and misleading because he failed to disclose to the investing public his belief that Interspeed was engaging in "creative accounting."

According to the Complaint, for example, on January 3, 2000, UBS Warburg issued a research report by the Analyst that rated Interspeed a "buy." Just two days later, the Analyst privately e-mailed a member of UBS Warburg's sales force, "(d)on't put people into Interspeed -- very risky." Fifteen minutes later, the recipient of the e-mail responded, asking "so why is (Interspeed) a short?" The Analyst replied, "(j)ust lumpy revenue, some stuffing of channel, creative accounting."

The lawsuit charges that UBS Warburg's and UBS Warburg Senior Telecommunications Analyst’s motive for issuing the fraudulent analyst reports was the desire to garner investment banking fees from Interspeed. The Complaint alleges that UBS Warburg earned $700,000 for underwriting Interspeed's 1999 initial public offering. The lawsuit also charges that if UBS Warburg had published truthful reports by the Analyst, the stock price of Interspeed would have plummeted.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Investment Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ISPD
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 #: 03-CV-04282
JUDGE: Hon. Richard M. Berman
DATE FILED: 06/12/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/03/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/20/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 03-CV-04282
JUDGE: Hon. Richard M. Berman
DATE FILED: 03/18/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/03/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/06/2000
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kenneth A. Elan (former NY)
    217 Broadway Suite 404, Kenneth A. Elan (former NY), NY 10007
    212.619.0260 ·
  2. Law Offices of Richard J. Vita (Boston)
    77 Franklin Street, 3rd Floor, Law Offices of Richard J. Vita (Boston), MA 02110
    617.426.6566 ·
  3. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  4. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date