UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MICHAEL ATLAS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
v. FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL
SECURITIES LAWS
MEDIAPLEX, INC.; GREGORY R. RAIFMAN;
SANDRA L. ABBOTT; JON L. EDWARDS; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC.; SG
COWEN SECURITIES CORP.; U.S.
BANCORP PIPER JAFFRAY, INC.;
FLEETBOSTON ROBERTSON STEPHENS,
INC.; CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON, INC.;
and J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, by
attorneys, for plaintiff's Complaint, allege upon the investigation made by and through plaintiff's
which included, inter alia, a review of relevant filings made by Mediaplex, Inc. ("Mediaplex" or the
"Company") with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as, tele-conferences, press
news articles, analyst reports, and media reports concerning the Company. Furthermore, this
is based upon plaintiff's personal knowledge as to plaintiff and plaintiff's own acts, and upon
and belief as to all other matters, based upon the aforementioned investigation.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a class action on behalf of all persons, other than defendants and certain
parties, who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired Mediaplex common stock, as
below, including, but not limited to, during the period from November 19, 1999 through December 6,
(the "Class Period") to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal securities
2. In the wake of the raging bull market of the 1990's lies a series of investigations
malfeasance by major Wall Street securities firms. As reported in national news sources such as
York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and Fortune Magazine, prosecutors in New York and
enforcement officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") are examining at least two
separate situations - - each questions the integrity and fairness of the capital markets of the
SNIPPETS:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MEDIAPLEX, INC.; GREGORY R. RAIFMAN;
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, by plaintiff's
"Company") with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as, tele-conferences, press
news articles, analyst reports, and media reports concerning the Company.
This is a class action on behalf of all persons, other than defendants and certain related
to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal securities law.
malfeasance by major Wall Street securities firms.
investment banks charged issuers of new securities excessive commissions and inflated
Second, investigators are examining, and have evidence, that major investment banks
allocated shares of especially hot initial public offerings to favored,
of the investigation is defendant investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,
the IPO boom include Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and Goldman Sachs Groups,
and maintain the price of the IPOs in the aftermarket once the initial distribution period
stock price, above the offering price, and create a false sense of demand that would attract
obtain allocations of stock on the offering - - but before the first after-market trade.
Securities Act of 1933 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77land 77o and Sections 10and
including the preparation and dissemination in this judicial district of the Prospectus
misleading, during the Class Period (including the trading of Mediaplex stock based upon
the underwriter defendants conduct substantial business in this district.
underwriter of the Mediaplex initial public offering of 6,000,000 shares of common stock at
SG Cowen, was a lead and/or managing underwriter of the Mediaplex initial public offering,
of the reports and press releases alleged herein to be materially false and/or misleading
Manipulated Securities omitted and/or misrepresented material facts about the offering of
In direct contravention to Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M of the Exchange Act,
direct participation and agreement of Mediaplex and the Individual Defendants.
violation of Regulation M, which governs market manipulation.
|
