CONTINGENCIES AND LITIGATION	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
CONTINGENCIES AND LITIGATION	9. CONTINGENCIES AND LITIGATION Securities Class Action Litigation. On November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action lawsuit was filed against us and our former chief executive officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, captioned Catherine Anastasio and Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network Services Corp. and James P. DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF. The complaint alleges that we and the individual defendant violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and that the individual defendant also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a “control person” of Internap. Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of our investors who purchased our common stock between March 28, 2007 and March 18, 2008. Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class period, we made misleading statements and omitted material information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream, which we acquired in 2007, (b) customer issues and related credits due to services outages and (c) our previously reported 2007 revenue that we subsequently reduced in 2008 as announced on March 18, 2008. Plaintiffs assert that we and the individual defendant made these misstatements and omissions to maintain our share price. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief. On August 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint added a claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged misrepresentations in our proxy statement in connection with our acquisition of VitalStream. The Amended Complaint also added our former chief financial officer as a defendant and lengthened the putative class period. On September 11, 2009, we and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss. On November 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint. On December 7, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter alia, an alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection with the VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from purported confidential witnesses. On September 15, 2010, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and denied the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. With respect to plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Court held that the Amended Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but allowed plaintiffs’ one final opportunity to amend the complaint. On October 26, 2010, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On December 10, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in large part the motion to dismiss. The two remaining claims involve certain alleged misstatements concerning the progress of the integration of VitalStream and the stability of our CDN platform. Derivative Action Litigation. On November 12, 2009, stockholder Walter M. Unick filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Internap against certain of our directors and officers in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, captioned Unick v. Eidenberg, et al., Case No. 2009cv177627. This action is based upon substantially the same facts alleged in the securities class action litigation described above. The complaint seeks to recover damages in an unspecified amount. On January 28, 2010, the Court entered the parties’ agreed order staying the matter until the motions to dismiss are resolved in the securities class action litigation. Given the developments in the securities class action described above, we intend to move to dismiss the derivative complaint. While we will vigorously contest these lawsuits, we cannot determine the final resolution of the lawsuits or when they might be resolved. In addition to the expenses incurred in defending this litigation and any damages that may be awarded in the event of an adverse ruling, our management’s efforts and attention may be diverted from the ordinary business operations to address these claims. Regardless of the outcome, this litigation described above may have a material adverse impact on our financial results because of defense costs, including costs related to our indemnification obligations, diversion of resources and other factors. We are subject to other legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, we do not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve these matters will have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

9. CONTINGENCIES AND LITIGATION

Securities Class Action Litigation. On November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action lawsuit was filed against us and our former chief executive officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, captioned Catherine Anastasio and Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network Services Corp. and James P. DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF. The complaint alleges that we and the individual defendant violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and that the individual defendant also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a “control person” of Internap. Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of our investors who purchased our common stock between March 28, 2007 and March 18, 2008.

Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class period, we made misleading statements and omitted material information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream, which we acquired in 2007, (b) customer issues and related credits due to services outages and (c) our previously reported 2007 revenue that we subsequently reduced in 2008 as announced on March 18, 2008. Plaintiffs assert that we and the individual defendant made these misstatements and omissions to maintain our share price. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On August 12, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file an Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint added a claim for violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged misrepresentations in our proxy statement in connection with our acquisition of VitalStream. The Amended Complaint also added our former chief financial officer as a defendant and lengthened the putative class period.

On September 11, 2009, we and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss. On November 6, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint. On December 7, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter alia, an alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection with the VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from purported confidential witnesses.

On September 15, 2010, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and denied the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. With respect to plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Court held that the Amended Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but allowed plaintiffs’ one final opportunity to amend the complaint. On October 26, 2010, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On December 10, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss this complaint. On September 30, 2011, the Court granted in large part the motion to dismiss. The two remaining claims involve certain alleged misstatements concerning the progress of the integration of VitalStream and the stability of our CDN platform.

Derivative Action Litigation. On November 12, 2009, stockholder Walter M. Unick filed a putative derivative action purportedly on behalf of Internap against certain of our directors and officers in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, captioned Unick v. Eidenberg, et al., Case No. 2009cv177627. This action is based upon substantially the same facts alleged in the securities class action litigation described above. The complaint seeks to recover damages in an unspecified amount. On January 28, 2010, the Court entered the parties’ agreed order staying the matter until the motions to dismiss are resolved in the securities class action litigation. Given the developments in the securities class action described above, we intend to move to dismiss the derivative complaint.

While we will vigorously contest these lawsuits, we cannot determine the final resolution of the lawsuits or when they might be resolved. In addition to the expenses incurred in defending this litigation and any damages that may be awarded in the event of an adverse ruling, our management’s efforts and attention may be diverted from the ordinary business operations to address these claims. Regardless of the outcome, this litigation described above may have a material adverse impact on our financial results because of defense costs, including costs related to our indemnification obligations, diversion of resources and other factors.

We are subject to other legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. Although the outcome of these matters is currently not determinable, we do not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve these matters will have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.