According to Judge Denise L. Cote, the plaintiffs failed to support their claim AOL already had a secret deal with Microsoft but wanted to depress its stock price until the repurchase program was completed. She said the process for setting the amount of the sanctions will be addressed in a separate order.
Allegedly, the court continued, “the purpose of this dissimulating was to keep AOL's stock price depressed while the company completed a repurchase program under which it acquired nearly 14.8 million shares of its own stock, stock that became much more valuable when the news of the patent sale was revealed.”
In August, however, the court dismissed the allegations (162 SLD, 8/21/13). It said the plaintiffs did not plead enough facts "to raise this theory above the speculative level."
In this case, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' counsel must be sanctioned under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 for filing a frivolous complaint. It said the secret-deal theory underlying the allegations was “'utterly lacking'” in factual support.
The plaintiffs were represented by Peter C. Harrar and Beth A. Landes, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York.
To see the decision, go to http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/IN_RE_AOL_INC_REPURCHASE_OFFER_LITIGATION_Docket_No_112cv03497_SD/1.
To view additional stories from Bloomberg Law® request a demo now