 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Siebel Systems, Inc. Summary: On January 23, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from the judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. On January 25, 2008, the Court entered the Judgment from the U.S. Court of Appeals, affirming the judgment of the District Court.
On August 27, 2004, the plaintiff filed an Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on October 12, 2004. On January 28, 2005, Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On March 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 27, 2005. According to the Judgment issued by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer on December 28, 2005, the Court having granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend, judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs.
The original complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements to the marketplace that artificially inflated the price of Siebel Systems shares. In particular, the Company misrepresented its business and future prospects by overstating customer acceptance of its new product offerings - including Siebel 7 CRM - and failed to disclose that "independent" customer satisfaction surveys which persuaded investors that a vast majority of the Company's customers would purchase products from the Company in the future were in fact carried out by an affiliated company and could not be relied upon.
The complaint further alleges that on July 17, 2002, Siebel announced its second quarter June 30, 2002 earnings reporting a precipitous drop in revenues of more than 15% and a 33% shortfall in earnings compared to consensus analyst forecasts. The Company also confirmed the continuing slide in demand for Siebel Systems' products by slashing revenue forecasts for the remainder of 2002 by an additional 25% - or $600,000,000 below guidance provided by defendants just six months prior. In unusually heavy volume of 65 million shares traded, Siebel Systems share prices dropped $2.13 on July 18 to close at $9.61.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7372
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Siebel Systems, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | SEBL |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.siebel.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Wollrab, et al. v. Siebel Systems, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In re Siebel Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Louis | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/23/2004 | ||
| Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Imundo | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/23/2004 | ||
| Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Gary Gelman, et al. v. Siebel Systems, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 03/25/2004 | ||
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top