![]() |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pitney Bowes, Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated October 28, 2009, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made numerous positive statements regarding the Company’s financial condition, business and prospects. The complaint further alleges that these statements were inaccurate statements of material fact when made because defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the Company was experiencing a slowdown in sales of equipment and software and supplies to the financial services sector; (ii) that revenues in the Company’s U.S. mailing segment had dramatically declined and were not performing according to internal expectations; (iii) that the Company’s international operations were not performing to internal expectations as market liberalization and deregulation was causing customers to delay purchasing decisions. For example, in France, a change in the method of meter rentals was causing delayed purchasing decisions and increased selling and marketing costs; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing and other adverse undisclosed factors, there was no reasonable basis for defendants’ positive statements about the Company, its operations and earnings. On October 29, 2007, Pitney Bowes held a conference call with analysts and investors to discuss the Company’s earnings and operations. During the conference call, defendants admitted that a host of factors caused Pitney Bowes to drastically miss the earnings they had promised. In response to the Company’s announcement, the price of Pitney Bowes common stock declined from $42.68 per share to $36.27 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION: SIC Code: 3579 Sector: Technology Industry: Office Equipment
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||