Business Services Industry
Lovell & Stewart Announces Securities Fraud Class Action Against Wink Communications, Certain Officers And Directors, Investment Banks
Business Wire, Nov 27, 2001
Business & Legal Editors
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 27, 2001
The following is an announcement by Lovell & Stewart, LLP:
The law firm of Lovell & Stewart, LLP ((212) 608-1900 or www.lovellstewart.com), acting on behalf of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee appointed pursuant to Case Management Order No. 1 in In re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Docket No. 21-MC-92 (SAS), filed a class action lawsuit on November 26, 2001 on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Wink Communications (NasdaqNM:WINK) between August 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The lawsuit asserts claims under Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to recover damages. Any member of the class may move the Court to be named lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 28, 2002.
The action, Collegeware USA, Inc. v. Wink Communications, et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl Street, New York, New York), Docket No. 01-CV-10638 (SAS) and has been assigned to the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S. District Judge. The complaint alleges that Wink Communications and certain of its officers and directors at the time of its IPO violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Wink common stock pursuant to the initial public offering without disclosing to investors that several of the underwriters of the IPO had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.
In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, defendants Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Chase H&Q (formerly known as Hambrecht & Quist LLC), Lehman Brothers, Inc., J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. allocated Wink shares to customers at the IPO price of $16.00 per share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at $16.00, the defendant underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The requirement that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the price of Wink stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive Wink's share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both the defendant underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying Wink stock at the $16.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $36.00 during its first day of trading.
Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their customers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions. These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his or her IPO stock allocation.
The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory approval for the Wink offering contained material misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed above.
Investors who acquired Wink Communications common stock during the period August 18, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive may contact Lovell & Stewart at the telephone number, address or E-mail address below for more information regarding the class action lawsuit. Investors can also visit Lovell & Stewart's website at www.lovellstewart.com to view a copy of the complaint.
- 5 Rules for Immediate Annuities
- Death in the Family: 12 Things to Do Now
- Dumbest Things You Do With Your Money
- 6 Online Networking Mistakes to Avoid
- 401(k) Mistakes to Avoid
- 5 Economic Scenarios to Keep You Up at Night
- The Real ‘Best Places to Retire’
- Best Credit Cards for You
- 12 Tough Questions to Ask Your Parents
- The Real ‘Best Colleges’
- Home Buyer Tax Credit: How to Cash In
- Why You Shouldn't Bash Cash
- 8 Phony 'Bargains' and Better Alternatives
- Danger: 3 Debit Card Scams to Avoid
- 6 Myths About Gas Mileage
- 29 Fees We Hate Most
- Quick and Easy Ways to Boost Returns
- Best Stocks to Buy Now
- Lower Your Taxes: 10 Moves to Make Now
- New Jobs: 8 Lessons from Real-Life Career Switchers
- The New Job Market: Who Wins and Who Loses?
- Health Care Reform's Public Option: Everything You Need to Know
- Volunteer Work When Unemployed: Should You Work for Free?
- Whose Recovery Is This?
- Long-Term-Care Insurance: 4 Biggest Risks to Avoid
Content provided in partnership with
Most Recent Business Articles
- Fox Networks Group and Bright House Networks Strike Comprehensive Deal to Distribute Fox Broadcast Stations, National Cable and Regional Sports Networks
- Fox Networks Group and Time Warner Cable Strike Comprehensive Deal to Distribute Fox Broadcast Stations, National Cable and Regional Sports Networks
- Houston Radio D.J. Kevin Kline Completes 500-Mile, 13-Day Ultramarathon Across Texas for Kids with Cancer
- Seaspan Corporation Provides Information on the CSCL Hamburg
- Dodecylamine improves nanocrystal synthesis
Most Recent Business Publications
Most Popular Business Articles
- 7 tips for effective listening: productive listening does not occur naturally. It requires hard work and practice - Back To Basics - effective listening is a crucial skill for internal auditors
- FAS 109: a primer for non-accountants - Financial Accounting Standards Board's "Statement 109: Accounting for Income Taxes"
- LIFO vs. FIFO: a return to the basics
- Using object-oriented analysis and design over traditional structured analysis and design
- Design a commission plan that drives sales - Sales Commissions


