SUNGARD DATA SYSTEMS INC SDS (last ticker on record)

CIK 789388Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)

Delisting notice (not a red flag)
Restatement

These figures describe clients, not conduct. A lawyer or firm can serve many companies that later had trouble for reasons that have nothing to do with their work, and nothing here says any lawyer or firm did anything wrong.

Red flags: 1; Newest began Jan 2012
Largest fall in its shares: —; None of 95% on record
Law firms: 12; Linked to 5 or more companies
Lawyers: 17; Linked to 5 or more companies

What happened

Jan 24, 2012Said its accounts could not be relied on (Item 4.02)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
Aug 17, 2005Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)

An SEC release can name a company’s officer, or its stock as what a scheme sold or moved, so the company may be the victim. Each link goes to what to read.

Law firms

The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.

Law firms linked to this company
Name	First linked	How it is known	Linked companies	SEC/DOJ scrutiny	Went dark	95% wipeout
Sheppard Mullin	Apr 2006	Named in a filing	392	1.12	0.81	1.22
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett	Apr 2006	Named in SEC correspondence	1,396	1.28	0.11	0.92
Snell & Wilmer	Apr 2006	Named in a filing	244	1.34	1.19	1.38
Morgan Lewis	Apr 2005	Named in SEC correspondence	1,028	1.18	0.31	1.02
Ropes & Gray	Apr 2005	Named in SEC correspondence	914	0.98	0.14	0.92
Shearman & Sterling	Mar 2004	Named in SEC correspondence	2,649	1.21	0.13	0.87
Cooley LLP	Nov 1997	Named in a filing	1,634	0.71	0.44	1.24
Morrison & Foerster	Nov 1997	Named in a filing	825	1.17	0.55	1.15
Blank Rome	Oct 1995	Named in SEC correspondence	348	1.04	0.79	1.36
Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP	Apr 2010	Text search only	390	1.38	0.86	1.22
Latham & Watkins LLP	Sep 2009	Text search only	2,667	0.98	0.31	1.10
Greenberg Traurig	Apr 2006	Text search only	1,223	1.01	1.03	1.10

Lawyers

The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.

Lawyers linked to this company
Name	First linked	How it is known	Linked companies	SEC/DOJ scrutiny	Went dark	95% wipeout
Thomas HoldenRopes & Gray	May 2009	Named in SEC correspondence	35	0.94	0.00	1.05
Richard A. FenyesSimpson Thacher & Bartlett	Apr 2006	Named in SEC correspondence	39	0.36	0.00	0.32
Alfred O. RoseRopes & Gray	Apr 2005	Named in SEC correspondence	27	1.30	0.00	2.24
Clare O'BrienShearman & Sterling	Apr 2005	Named in SEC correspondence	23	1.77	0.00	0.33
Howard L. ShecterMorgan Lewis	Apr 2005	Named in SEC correspondence	8	0.00	0.00	1.29
Julie H. JonesRopes & Gray	Apr 2005	Named in SEC correspondence	25	0.41	0.00	1.36
Robert J. LichtensteinMorgan Lewis	Apr 2005	Named in SEC correspondence	18	0.65	0.00	0.46
Brad L. ShiffmanBlank Rome	Mar 2004	Named in a filing	47	1.33	0.74	1.61
Richard J. McMahonBlank Rome	Mar 2004	Named in a filing	9	0.00	0.00	1.09
James H. Carroll	Jul 1999	Named in a filing	22	0.37	1.42	1.84
Keith A. FlaumCooley LLP	Nov 1997	Named in a filing	25	1.78	0.00	0.00
Richard E. ClimanHogan Lovells US LLP	Nov 1997	Named in a filing	10	1.56	0.00	0.00
Ryan BekkerusSimpson Thacher & Bartlett	Jul 2009	Text search only	14	1.12	0.00	1.63
OR FORMATIONSimpson Thacher & Bartlett	Apr 2008	Text search only	160	1.27	0.15	0.90
Eliza W. SwannShearman & Sterling	Apr 2005	Text search only	5	3.04	0.00	0.00
Randolph H. FieldsGreenberg Traurig	Feb 2003	Text search only	13	1.54	3.01	0.80
Francis E. DehelBlank Rome	Jun 2001	Text search only	19	2.15	2.54	0.42