Comverse Technology, Inc. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Comverse Technology, Inc. Summary: Securities class actions against Comverse Technology, Inc. have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.

The original Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose information regarding the true timing of stock option grants made to key executives. This manipulation of the grant dates permitted the individual defendants to enrich themselves, while artificially inflating net income, operating income and retained earnings. Had the timing not been manipulated, and properly accounted for, these financial measures would have been materially lower.

The complaint further alleges that on or around March 14, 2006, Comverse announced the creation of a special committee of its Board of Directors composed of outside directors to review matters relating to the company's stock option grants, the accuracy of the stated dates of option grants and whether all proper corporate procedures were followed. Then, on April 17, 2006, Comverse revealed that it would restate its financial statements for the first three quarters of fiscal 2006, for the 2001-05 fiscal years, and possibly previous periods. The adjustments are expected to be material. On this news, Comverse stock dropped from $29.15 on March 13, 2006 to $23.31 on April 17, 2006, a decline of over 20%.

In an article dated March 6, 2007, the federal judge overseeing a class action lawsuit against embattled telecommunications company Comverse Technology has vacated a magistrate judge's decision recommending the appointment of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins as lead plaintiff's counsel. Finding that Lerach Coughlin's client, Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund (P&P), did not in fact have the greatest financial interest in the litigation, Eastern District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, in In re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, 06-CV-1825, last week granted a request by Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross to serve as lead plaintiff's counsel. In appointing the firm that role under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the judge said Pomerantz Haudek's client, the Menorah Group, purchased "the greatest number of net shares" of Comverse stock, "expanded the greatest number of net funds" and suffered "the greatest loss."

Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on March 23, 2007. Defendants filed their first motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on July 30, 2008, while one individual defendant filed his motion to dismiss on August 21, 2007.

In an article dated February 26, 2008, Comverse Technology Inc., the world's largest maker of voice-mail software, lost a bid to dismiss a lawsuit filed by investors who said they were defrauded by an options-backdating scheme led by ex-Chief Executive Officer. United States District Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis, in Brooklyn, New York, denied a request by Comverse to dismiss a consolidated class-action, or group lawsuit, filed in 2006 against Comverse and other former top executives.

On March 5, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint and later filed a revised version of the complaint on April 10, 2008. On June 2, 2008, an individual defendant filed a motion to dismiss in part. On July 15, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. On July 18, 2008, the individual defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted and the claims against him were dismissed. On November 24, 2008, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis terminated the pending motion to certify the class and directed the lead plaintiffs to re-file the motion once it is fully briefed. On January 16, 2009, the lead plaintiff re-filed a motion to certify the class.

On February 26, 2009, two Third Party Complaints were filed against Deloitte & Touche LLP, each filed by an individual defendant named in the action.

On February 27, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Third Consolidated Amended Complaint and filed a corrected version on March 10, 2009. The defendants filed answers to the Third Consolidated Amended Complaint. The parties soon after filed motions to stay the action which were granted.

On December 18, 2009, the lead plaintiffs filed a Settlement Agreement. The parties to the have agreed to settle the case for $225 million dollars. According to the Settlement Agreement, the company defendant Comverse Technology will pay $165 million and an individual defendant will cause to pay $60 million. On April 6, 2010, the settlement was preliminarily approved. The Fairness Hearing was set for June 21, 2010, before Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis. On June 24, 2010, the Court entered the Judgment and Order of Dismissal, approving the settlement and dismissing the action without prejudice. The Third Party Complaints are also dismissed with prejudice.

According to an article dated June 25, 2010, a federal judge in Brooklyn has approved a $56 million fee for Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross for its work as lead counsel in a class action over alleged backdating against Comverse Technology Inc. Eastern District of New York Judge Nicholas Garaufis on Thursday approved a fee of 25 percent of a $225 million settlement, which the judge also signed off on in In re Comverse Technology Inc. Securities Litigation (pdf), 06-CV-1825. A state retirement fund in Pennsylvania had objected to the fees as too large (pdf), but the judge said he was unwilling to interfere with an award negotiated openly between the law firm and its client, lead plaintiff Menora Group.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3661
Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Comverse Technology, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	CMVT
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.cmvt.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Anthony Caiafia, et al. v. Comverse Technology, Inc., et al.

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 06-CV-01825
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Nicholas G. Garaufis
DATE FILED: 04/19/2006	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/30/2001	CLASS PERIOD END: 04/16/2006
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP (New York) 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212-889-3700, (fax) 212-684-519, info@abbeyspanier.com Hanzman & Criden, P.A. 220 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables, FL, 33134 (voice) 305.357.9000, (fax) 305.357.9050, info@hanzmancriden.com Klafter & Olsen LLP (Washington) 1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 200, Washington, DC, 20036 (voice) 202.261.3553, (fax) 202.261.3533, info@klafterolsen.com Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 212.907.0700, (fax) 212.818.0477 , info@labaton.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P. Suite 301, 660 Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, 20003-4335 (voice) 202.544.9840, (fax) 202.544.9850, Paskowitz & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY, 10165 (voice) 212.685.0969, (fax) 212.685.2306, classattorney@aol.com Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (New York) 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516 (voice) 212.661.1100, (fax) 212.661.8665, info@pomerantzlaw.com/ The Nygaard Law Firm 4501 College Blvd. Suite 260, Leawood, KS, 66211 (voice) 1-888-469-5544, (fax) 913.469-1561, Wolf Popper, LLP 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022-6689 (voice) 877.370.7703, (fax) 212.486.2093, IRRep@wolfpopper.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 10

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/19/2006
Order
Type: Order of Consolidation		Date on the document: 08/16/2006
Memorandum & Order
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 09/27/2006
US District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/29/2006
Memorandum and Order
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 03/02/2007

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re Comverse Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: E.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 06-CV-01825
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Nicholas G. Garaufis
DATE FILED: 03/10/2009	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/30/2001	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/14/2006
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Third Amended and Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (former Chicago) 1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2225, Chicago, IL, 60602 (voice) 312.377.1181, (fax) 312.377.1184, info@pomerantzlaw.com/ Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (New York) 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516 (voice) 212.661.1100, (fax) 212.661.8665, info@pomerantzlaw.com/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/23/2007
Report & Recommendation
Type: Other		Date on the document: 10/31/2007
Memorandum and Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/19/2008
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/05/2008
Revised Second Consolidated Amended Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/10/2008
Memorandum And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 07/17/2008
Third-Party Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/25/2009
Third-Party Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/26/2009
Third Consolidated Amended Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/27/2009
Corrected Third Consolidated Amended Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/10/2009
Settlement Agreement
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 12/18/2009
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement And Scheduling Fairness Hearing
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/06/2010
Amendment To The Stipulation Of Settlement
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/21/2010
Judgment And Order Of Dismissal
Type: Order		Date on the document: 06/24/2010
Memorandum
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 06/24/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/08/2010

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
Case Name and/or Number: Tully Nadel, et al. v. Comverse Technology, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/25/2006
Verified Shareholder's Derivative Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Braverman, et al. v. Comverse Technology, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 05/01/2006
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
Case Name and/or Number: Thomas, et al. v. Comverse Technology, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 05/04/2006
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Gorman, et al. v. Comverse Technology, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/01/2006
Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Moore, et al. v. Comverse Technology, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/12/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Thomas, et al. v. Comverse Technology, Inc., et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/08/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Moore, et al. v. Comverse Technology, Inc., et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/28/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Nadel, et al. v. Comverse Technology, Inc., et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/28/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Gorman, et al. v. Comverse Technology, Inc., et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 09/28/2006

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

�