Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 04/22/2011 (Date of order of distribution of settlement)

Filing Date: August 19, 2005

According to a news article released June 2, 2008, preliminary approval to a $117.5 million settlement has been granted. Mercury first agreed to the multimillion-dollar settlement with its investor clients — the Mercury Pension Fund Group — last October. At the time, it was one of the largest such deals in any stock options backdating case.

On August 27, 2007, a Stipulation and Order was filed extending the filing of the Amended Complaint to September 26, 2007.

According to a press release dated August 2, 2007, the latest ruling came Monday, when San Jose federal judge Jeremy Fogel dismissed with leave to amend a securities class action against former managers and the company — now owned by Hewlett-Packard — as overly broad. Fogel had already dismissed federal shareholder derivative claims against the company. Among the problems Fogel found with the securities complaint was that plaintiffs had inadequately argued that the defendants acted knowingly or with deliberate recklessness. Fogel also found plaintiffs hadn't stated a specific enough amount of loss that shareholders had suffered as a result of share-price drops. … Plaintiffs have 30 days to file their amended complaint.

On November 17, 2006, the defendants filed several motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The motions are currently pending before the court.

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, beginning on or about August 19, 2005, several securities class action complaints were filed against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors, on behalf of purchasers of our stock from October 2003 to November 2005. These class action lawsuits are consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as In re Mercury Interactive Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-3395. The original actions were Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. v. Mercury Interactive, et al (Case No. C05-3395), Johnson v. Mercury Interactive, et al. (Case No. 05-3864), Munao v. Mercury Interactive, et al. (Case No. C05-4031), and Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. Mercury Interactive, et al. (Case No. 05-5157). On May 5, 2006, the Court appointed the Mercury Pension Fund Group, represented by Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP and Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, as lead plaintiff and counsel. The Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on September 8, 2006. The Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegations that we and the individual defendants and our auditors made false or misleading public statements regarding our business and operations during the putative class period of October 17, 2000 to November 1, 2005, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the defendants. At this time, we have not recorded any liabilities as we are unable to estimate the potential liabilities.

The original complaint alleges that as late as April 28, 2005, Defendants increased their previous 2005 annual guidance, serving to affirm prior statements that the company was continuing in a positive direction. Unbeknownst to investors, it is alleged that Defendants concealed auditing expenses during the class period.

The case was brought on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or acquired MercInteractive securities during the class period. This case is also brought on behalf of those purchasing notes convertible to shares of Company stock, pursuant to the Company's 0 Coupon Senior Convertible Notes (due 2008 offering).

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MERQ
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-03395
JUDGE: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
DATE FILED: 08/19/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/22/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/05/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  4. Green Welling LLP (San Francisco,)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2750, Green Welling LLP (San Francisco,), CA 94105
    415.477.6700 415.477-6710 · gw@classcounsel.com
  5. Johnson & Perkinson
    1690 Williston Road, Johnson & Perkinson, VT 05403
    802.862.0030 802.862.0060 · JPLAW@adelphia.net
  6. 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
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  8. Schubert & Reed LLP
    Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1050, Schubert & Reed LLP, CA 94111
    415.788.4220 415.788.0161 · mail@schubert-reed.com
  9. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  10. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
  11. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 05-CV-03395
JUDGE: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
DATE FILED: 09/08/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/17/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/01/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (SF)
    455 Market Street, Suite 1810, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (SF), CA 94105
    415.972.81 415.972-816 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
    100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
  4. 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
  5. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date