Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/26/2006 (Stipulation and order of dismissal (voluntary dismissal))

Filing Date: September 08, 2006

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, on September 6, 2006, the Company also announced that, in connection with the preparation of financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, a subcommittee of independent directors was appointed to review the Company’s accounting treatment for stock option grants for prior years. Following that announcement, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named defendants in a purported federal securities class action lawsuits filed in Massachusetts federal district court, alleging violations of the Exchange Act and claiming material misstatements concerning its financial condition and results. In response to the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint, the parties stipulated to voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice on September 26, 2006 without any payment by the Company.

The complaint alleges that Aspen Tech and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the backdating of the grant of stock options to management, and the falsification of its financial statements for the years 2002-2005 and the first three quarters of 2006. The Company had been previously forced to restate its financial statements for the years 2002-2004 in 2005, and the investing public was led to understand such accounting issues were resolved. The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only potentially lines the pockets of the executives, but here resulted in the overstatement of Aspen Tech's earnings between 2002 and 2005, and the under-booking of compensation expenses. Under accounting rules, back-dating an option grant is deemed the payment of additional compensation and must be accounted for as an expense, which Aspen Tech failed to do.

The complaint further alleges that on or around September 6, 2006, the defendants shocked the market by announcing that the Company would be forced to restate its financial statements to correct for the backdating of stock options, by booking approximately $31 million of additional compensation charges. On this news the Company's share prices declined substantially on greatly increased share volume.


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


Ticker Symbol: AZPN
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: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 06-CV-11616
JUDGE: Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr.
DATE FILED: 09/08/2006
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/06/2006
  1. Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP (New York)
    212 East 39th Street, Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212-889-3700 212-684-519 ·
  2. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
    One Liberty Square, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), MA 02109
    617.542.8300 ·
  3. Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York)
    350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000 , Roy Jacobs & Associates (New York), NY 10118
No Document Title Filing Date