 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Novatel Wireless, Inc. Summary: The original complaint charges Novatel and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial performance and prospects caused Novatel's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Novatel Wireless, Inc. provides wireless broadband access solutions for the mobile communications market worldwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Novatel's financial performance were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company improperly recognized revenue in violation of its own revenue cut-off procedures; (2) that, as a result of this improper revenue recognition, the Company misstated its financial results during the Class Period; (3) that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Throughout most of the Class Period, defendants issued favorable revenue guidance and touted the Company's financial performance and prospects. For example, on February 20, 2008, Novatel provided revenue guidance of approximately $110 million for first quarter 2008, based in part on "expectations of strong demand for the Company's products, particularly its USB products, as well as assumptions about industry wide supply constraints on certain components." On May 20, 2008, however, Novatel filed a Form 8-K with the SEC stating that the Company "will notify the Nasdaq Stock Market that it did not timely file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008," and that "the Company and its Audit Committee have undertaken an expanded enhanced review of the Company's revenue cut off procedures and internal controls related to certain customer contracts, which review is ongoing." Then, on August 19, 2008, following the close of trading Novatel shocked investors when it issued a press release which revealed that the Audit Committee of the Company's board of directors had reviewed the accounting for six transactions and made a preliminary determination to move approximately $3.4 million of revenues from the first quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2008. Moreover, Novatel disclosed for the first time that this was not a minor accounting issue and that there was a possibility that the Company may have to restate its audited financial statements for the 2007 fiscal year. As a result of this news, shares of Novatel declined $2.11 per share, more than 25%, to close on August 20, 2008 at $6.29 per share, on unusually heavy volume.
According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, on September 15, 2008, and September 18, 2008, two putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased our stock between February 5, 2007 and August 19, 2008. On December 11, 2008, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al. , Case No. 08-CV-01689-H (RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C., S.D. Cal.). The plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who allegedly purchased our stock between February 27, 2007 and November 10, 2008. The consolidated complaint names the Company and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that we issued materially false and misleading statements during the relevant time period regarding the strength of our products and market share, our financial results and our internal controls. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages and costs. On April 1, 2009, the court entered an order denying the defendants’ previously filed motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On May 1, 2009, all defendants filed an answer to the consolidated complaint and moved to reconsider the order on the motion to dismiss. On June 5, 2009, the court granted defendants’ motion for reconsideration and vacated its prior order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. On July 28, 2009, the court denied defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 7370
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Novatel Wireless, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | NVTL |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.novatelwireless.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Maureen Backe, et al. v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 09/15/2008 | ||
| Order Granting Motions To Consolidated Cases, Pension Fund Group's Motion For Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of Lead Counsel & Denying New Jersey Building Laborers Pension Fund & Sextion Group's Motions | |||
| Type: Order Appointing LP/LC | Date on the document: 12/10/2008 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| Maureen Backe, et al. v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Consolidated Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 01/09/2009 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 10/09/2009 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
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