Company and Case Information

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


ShoreTel, Inc.
Summary: According to a press release dated January 16, 2008, ShoreTel, certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's underwriters are charged with including, or allowing the inclusion of, materially false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that following ShoreTel's July 3, 2007 IPO -- which raised gross proceeds of at least $86.3075 million -- investors learned the truth about the Company on January 7, 2008 -- including that the problems which existed at the time of the IPO would result in extremely disappointing results for the third quarter of fiscal 2008 (the period ended December 31, 2007), including much lower than expected revenues and higher than expected costs and expenses. At that time, defendants first belatedly revealed that sales to new customers were substantially lower than expected, and that sales to existing customers was not sufficient to offset these declines. In addition, by this time, it became obvious to investors that the Company did not maintain adequate internal controls, and that a proper due diligence investigation into the Company, by the Underwriters, was not properly carried out prior to the Offering.

On this news, on January 7, 2008, over 6.0 million shares of ShoreTel traded -- over 20 times average daily trading volume -- and Company shares plummeted -- falling over 50% to close at $6.02 per share.

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


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: ShoreTel, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: SHOR
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.shoretel.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
William Watkins, et al. v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al.
 COURT: N.D. California  DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-00271
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
 DATE FILED: 01/15/2008  SOURCE: Notice of Filing
 CLASS PERIOD START: 07/03/2007  CLASS PERIOD END: 07/03/2007
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
  • Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP
      2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598
       (voice) (925) 945-0200, (fax) (925) 945-8792, info@bramsonplutzik.com
  • Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
      1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA, 98101
       (voice) 206-623-7292, (fax) 206-623-0594, info@hagens-berman.com
  • Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
      650 Poydras St. Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA, 70130
       (voice) (504) 455-1400, (fax) , lewis.kahn@kglg.com
  • Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
      2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120, Walnut Creek, CA, 94598
       (voice) 925.945.0200, (fax) 925.945.8792, info@sbtklaw.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  4

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 01/15/2008

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
    Case Name and/or Number: Phynice Kelley, et al. v. ShoreTel, Inc., et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 01/29/2008

    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