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


KIT Digital, Inc.
Summary: According to the law firm press release, KIT digital and certain of its senior executives are charged with issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements, during the Class Period, in violation of federal securities laws.

During the class period, KIT digital was engaged in acquiring and purportedly integrating companies that were in the business of marketing end-to-end technology platforms for IP based video content providers. Under the leadership of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, from May 2008 to May 2011, KIT digital acquired over a dozen other companies, using cash raised through equity sales and stock as acquisition currency. As a result of its purported success, KIT digital reported "record" setting financial results, and repeatedly upgraded its financial guidance, throughout the Class Period.

The action charges that, on May 3, 2012, investors ultimately learned that KIT digital was operating far below guidance, and that the success of the integration and administration of its purchased assets had been overstated, and that the true costs of integrating and administering these acquisitions was understated.

Based on the disparity between prior guidance and KIT digital's announced results for 1Q:12, on May 3, 2012, its shares declined precipitously - - falling to an intra-day low of $4.12 per share, compared to the prior day's close of $6.34 per share, on May 2, 2012.

It was only at that time that investors first learned that: (i) KIT digital was not achieving its projected growth in earnings and revenues; (ii) the effectiveness of the integration of purchased companies had been materially overstated; (iii) KIT digital had materially overstated its foreseeable growth and profitability, and had falsely stated that the Company was poised to achieve significant financial success; and (iv) it was not true that KIT digital contained adequate systems of controls, such that KIT digital's representations and reports were true, accurate and reliable.

On May 3, 2012, the Wall Street Journal published a critical report on KIT digital that concluded that the former CEO and board Chairman who unexpectedly resigned in April 2012, had "left a mess" at the Company. The Journal also reported that KIT digital's new CEO, would not endorse prior guidance.

On September 28, 2012, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases, appointing lead plaintiff, and approving the selection of lead counsel.

On January 3, 2013, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. It was ordered that all filings in connection with the consolidated action be docketed against the remaining lower number cases, 12 civ. 4199. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the referenced higher numbered cases, 12 civ. 5446 and 12 civ. 8732, as separate actions and remove them from the Court's docket. The Court issued another Order consolidating cases on January 4. It was ordered that all filings in connection with the consolidated action be docketed against the remaining lower numbered case, 12 Civ. 4199; and it was ordered that the Clerk of Court close the referenced higher numbered case, 12 Civ. 9210 as a separate action and remove it from the Court's docket.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 8900
Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: KIT Digital, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: KITD
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.kitd.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Robert McHardy, et al. v. KIT digital, Inc., et al.
 COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 12-CV-04199
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Victor Marrero
 DATE FILED: 05/25/2012  SOURCE: 
 CLASS PERIOD START: 11/08/2011  CLASS PERIOD END: 05/03/2012
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC (Updated New York)
      500 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 1810, New York, NY, 10110
       (voice) 212.696.3730, (fax) 504.455-1498,
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  1

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 05/25/2012
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 05/25/2012
    Order
    Type: Order Date on the document: 10/01/2012
    Order
    Type: Order of Consolidation Date on the document: 01/03/2013
    Order
    Type: Order of Consolidation Date on the document: 01/04/2013
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 01/17/2013

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws
    Case Name and/or Number: James Slattery, et al. v. KIT Digital, Inc., et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 11/30/2012
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Case Name and/or Number: James Slattery v. KIT Digital Inc. et al
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 12/20/2012

    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