Class Action Suit Filed

Posts: 1 · New Forum Member Joined: May 24, 2006 Posts: 1

It has begun... Twisted Evil

Press Release Source: Motley Rice LLC

Investor Alert: Motley Rice LLC Files Suit against Vonage Holdings Corp. and Encourages Investors to Explore Legal Options
Friday June 2, 6:35 pm ET

ATLANTA--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 2, 2006--Motley Rice LLC hereby gives notice that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Vonage Holdings Corp. ("Vonage" or the "Company") (NYSE: VG - News). If you would like to discuss this action, receive a copy of the complaint, or have any questions about this notice or your rights, please contact attorney Leslie G. Toran via e-mail at ltoran@motleyrice.com or via telephone at 404-201-6910.
Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of his or her choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. To serve as lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court no later than August 1, 2006 for appointment. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether to serve as lead plaintiff. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have about your options.

The Complaint alleges the Company and certain named officers and underwriters violated the federal securities laws by publishing a materially false and misleading joint Registration Statement and Proxy-Prospectus (the "Prospectus"). The Company provides broadband telephone services in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, primarily using voice over Internet protocol technology. Prior to the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on May 24, 2006, the Company had spent hundreds of millions of dollars to market its services to potential customers. However, the Complaint alleges, both the Company and Company insiders, who had invested hundreds of millions of dollars of their personal funds in the Company, were losing money. According to the Complaint, these Company insiders, desperate to execute an exit strategy for themselves, embarked on an illegal course of conduct to sell shares of the Company in a public market.

The Complaint further alleges that, Defendants, realizing that institutional investors who normally buy in IPOs would be reluctant at best to purchase Vonage shares as-priced, pre-sold at least 13.5% of the Company's IPO shares to Company customers in violation of NASD Rule 2310. NASD Rule 2310 requires that a company recommending the purchase or sale of its securities to a customer must have a reasonable basis for believing that the recommendation is suitable for the customer. The Complaint also alleges Defendants had no such reasonable basis in this case and improperly crammed investors into the Vonage IPO regardless of their suitability.

The Complaint also contends that the Underwriter Defendants violated the securities laws because they allowed this illegal and improper action to continue. The Underwriter Defendants, the Plaintiff claims, had an obligation to ensure that Vonage had complied with NASD Rule 2310 in setting up and administering the accounts of customers purchasing in the IPO. According to the Complaint, however, the Underwriter Defendants had little or no incentive to ensure that customer participants in the IPO were suitable. Instead, the Complaint also alleges they were motivated by the tens of millions of dollars in fees they would receive from a successful IPO. Furthermore, according to the Complaint, Vonage had agreed to indemnify the Underwriter Defendants against certain liabilities relating to the customer pre-sale program; among those liabilities was the foreseeable possibility that customers who purchased in the IPO would refuse or fail to pay for the common stock allocated to them in the pre-sale.

As a result of this alleged illegal conduct, shares of Vonage sold in the IPO declined more than 30% in the first seven trading days. The decline in value of these shares has been substantially exacerbated by many Vonage customers who participated in the pre-sale now refusing to pay for their shares.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired VG stock and suffered a loss as a result. The plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Motley Rice LLC, which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. For more information about Motley Rice LLC please visit http://www.motleyrice.com.

Contact:
Motley Rice LLC
Investor Contact:
Leslie G. Toran, Esq., 404-201-6910
ltoran@motleyrice.com
www.motleyrice.com

Posts: 476 · Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject:

Probably the first of many. They are still fishing for a lead plaintiff.

Posts: 4 · Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject:

It was just a matter of time. I am just glad there will be some representation to help us through this mess.

I believed in this company to price their stock accordingly... the stock was to reward their loyal customers and unfortunately, they just upset 10,000 of their most loyal customers.

I hope this works out.

Posts: 29 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 30, 2006 Posts: 29

The idiot ambulance chaser is probably a Vonage customer that bought into the IPO. Now he'll sucker the rest of you crybabies into a useless lawsuit, make 100 times more in the legal fees than what he may have lost in the stock purchase, and laugh all the way to the bank. It gets more and more laughable everytime one of these new postings pop up about how you ignorant fools feel like Vonage ripped you off because the stock tanked. As long and worded as the prospectus was, I'm sure any 'lawyer' could find some loophole or reason to justify a lawsuit. At what time, and where was it written where Vonage stated, "We guarantee this IPO will be successful. Buy into the stock purchase plan, and we'll insure you will make tons of cash, or you're money back!!" This isn't a Ron Popeil Turkey Jerky Machine. It's a stock traded on the NY Stock Exchange. When you agreed to purchase this stock, you were told of the risks. People have said this so many times, yet you choose to ignore it. You keep trying to justify and come up with illusions of grandeur of how Vonage purposely and maliciously talked you into buying this stock. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to buy this stock. I went through the process. There had to be at least 20 screens that warned you of the risks, and asked you if you were sure you wanted to proceed with the purchase. I just can't believe you people could live with youselves if some moronic lawyer finds some obtuse wording in the prospectus to get you out of having to live it up to your committment to purchased what you agreed to buy. If it does happen, it can have adverse affects on the market we see today. That's the scary part. Another company IPO's and tanks. "They purposely ripped us off! We want our money back!! Vonage buyers did it, why can't we?" If a lawsuit does happen, I see it going all the way to the US Supreme Court before it gets resolved.

Posts: 1123 · Vonage Forum **MVM** Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 1123

This isn't a Ron Popeil Turkey Jerky Machine.

Hey, that thing makes some damn good jerky.

Posts: 31 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 21, 2006 Posts: 31

rudedog40 wrote:

I see it going all the way to the US Supreme Court before it gets resolved.

LOL - you have to be the least informed person on this board.

Posts: 3 · New Forum Member Joined: Aug 05, 2005 Posts: 3

rudedog40 you said well, as have many others.

I subscribed to the IPO, made my conditional offer, then took the time to thoroughly research it. Ultimately, I decided to cancel my offer on Sunday night, May 21.

Had the stock gone up, all these whiners would be shouting from the rooftops how much they made, and **** they weren't able to buy more.

I think many of the people who bought in were blinded by their greed. They saw big dollar signs and glossed over the multitude of warnings that there were no guarantees and significant risks.

Now the big dollar signs are coming from their accounts and they want to claim some conspiracy or fraud.

To those who are unhappy:

Go back and re-read the prospectus. You made a contract to buy shares at a fixed price. Now, you're threatening to to break that contract. Honor it, or you may be defending the indefensible in court.

Posts: 31 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 21, 2006 Posts: 31

jlridge wrote:

rudedog40 you said well, as have many others.

I subscribed to the IPO, made my conditional offer, then took the time to thoroughly research it. Ultimately, I decided to cancel my offer on Sunday night, May 21.

Had the stock gone up, all these whiners would be shouting from the rooftops how much they made, and **** they weren't able to buy more.

I think many of the people who bought in were blinded by their greed. They saw big dollar signs and glossed over the multitude of warnings that there were no guarantees and significant risks.

Now the big dollar signs are coming from their accounts and they want to claim some conspiracy or fraud.

To those who are unhappy:

Go back and re-read the prospectus. You made a contract to buy shares at a fixed price. Now, you're threatening to to break that contract. Honor it, or you may be defending the indefensible in court.

so just out of curiousity, why are you posting on this board. Do you often post on boards where you have decided not to buy?

also, it is your first post...so welcome...ofcourse I am sure your IP address matches dumbdog40

Posts: 3 · New Forum Member Joined: Aug 05, 2005 Posts: 3

Quote:

so just out of curiousity, why are you posting on this board. Do you often post on boards where you have decided not to buy?

also, it is your first post...so welcome...of course I am sure your IP address matches dumbdog40

I'm posting now because I am following these threads. I've been a Vonage subscriber since May 29, 2004. I like the service and I participated in the IPO, but didn't like the risk so I backed out.

I believe one is only as good as ones word, and that includes when things go bad. The attitude I see here among many is disturbing. I'm sure they would expect someone to pay them if they signed a contract to do so.

If you buy a house and don't have a thorough home inspection, then find it needs a new roof and foundation, do you stiff your mortgage company? I don't think so.

I have been a member of this forum since last year, and read it several times a week. I have found answers to every question I have needed to ask by searching the forums, and have had no need to post until now.

I have no idea who or where rudedog40 is.

Posts: 31 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 21, 2006 Posts: 31

[quote="jlridge"]

Quote:

If you buy a house and don't have a thorough home inspection, then find it needs a new roof and foundation, do you stiff your mortgage company? I don't think so.

It depends, did the mortgage company conspire with the builder to dupe me. Did both the builder and the mortgage company fail to follow the law - such as the disclosure failure reported by bloomberg & by giving contradictory statements to the press during the quiet period?

Yes, if I feel that I was defrauded, I would seek legal counsel.