Chaim tiewYpse,f, qn behalf of SUMhWNS IN A
himself and all others similarly
Yituat&
V. CASE NUMBER:
ParmeCric Technology Corporatim
and Whn hudsm
Yawinctric Technology Corporation c/C, Martha L. Durcan
1Lkl !kchnology lkive
Waltham, VA 02154
YOU ARE HEREBY SlJMMONED and required to file wlth the Clerk of this Court
PlAINtIFF'S ArPOR~EY m.y,,, WE maw,,q
Glen DeValerio
Bema~, DeVaAerio & Pease
One Liberty Square
Boston, M2i 02109
(617) 542-8300
an answer to the complaint which Is henwlth serwxl upon you, wlthin
this summons upan you, e~ciu6lu.r of the day of service. If you fall to
against you for the relief demanded In the camplalnt.
DISTRICT OF
chab Beti-Yosef, on behalf cf S'U&lMQNS
himself and all-others similarly
sikuated V. CASE NUh&R:
I Parmet#ic Technology Corporation
and Johiz kiudson i 8cvl
John Hudson
SNIPPETS:
Plaintiff, individually and on `behalf of all other persons similarly siticd, by his
undersigned attorneys, for his complaint, alleges upon personal knowledge as to himself and
own acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, based up0s iMet UZiU, the
June 26,1998, through and includiag July I,1998, to recover damages
CO,, publicly downgraded her expectations for revenues for Parametric for its 1998
Pammetric stock price began to de&e in reaction to the news.
In response to the stock price decline, a reporter from Dow Jones News Service
"AII $s million revenue adjustment is not a huge amount* Hudson reportedly said.
In fact, on July 1,1998, &r the stock market had closed, and just three business
Well udmay prior to the Company's &%nation of the market's expectation on quarterly
public of the misleading statemedts at issue, occurred in substantial put in this District
Defendant EMson, as an officer of the Company, is a controlling person of the
materidy false and misleading stat.enx~ ident&,d herein.
By reason of bis positian with the Company,
17, Parametric, and Hudson as an officer of a publicly-held company, had a duly to
Each of the defendants knew or reckksly disregarded that the misl&ing
constitute a fraud and deceit upon plaintiff and the other members of the Class.
COJllPfW had in excess of 270 million &ares of its common stock outstanding as of April 4,
questions of law and fact co4mon to the Class ue:
whether the market prices of Parametric securities during the Class
A class action is superior to other available methods for the &ir and efficient
defendants made public misrepresentations or Wed to disclose
material facts dtig the Class Period;
explicitly adopted analysts' expectaiious, a9 revised by Ms.
ofthe Class to purchase Parametric common stock during the Class Period at artificially k&ted
|
