 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Envivio, Inc. Summary: According to the Complaint, Envivio provides software-based internet protocol ("LP") video processing and distribution solutions to mobile and broadband service providers, cable multiple system operators, and direct broadcast satellite service providers and content providers. Its solutions enable service providers and content providers to deliver linear broadcast and on-demand video services to their customers through multiple screens, such as tablets, mobile handsets, netbooks, laptops, personal computers, and televisions.
On or about April 25, 2012, Envivio filed its Prospectus for the IPO, which forms part of the April 24, 2012 Form S-l/A Registration Statement for the IPO, which became effective on April 24, 2012. At least 7,755,000 shares of Envivio common stock were sold to the public at $9 per share.
On August 13, 2012, Envivio issued a press release announcing preliminary revenue results for its fiscal 2012 second quarter. The Company reported that it expected revenues to be in the range of $10 million to $11 million versus its previous guidance of $17 million to $18 million for the quarter ending July 31, 2012.
On this news, Envivio's stock price dropped quickly, falling $3.22 per share to close at $2.48 per share on August 14, 2012, a one-day decline of more than 56%, on high volume.
Subsequently, on September 6, 2012, after the market closed, Envivio issued a press release announcing its results for its fiscal 2012 second quarter and disappointing guidance for its fiscal 2012 third quarter. The Company reported a net loss of $4.3 million or $0.16 earnings per share and revenue of $10.8 million for the second quarter. The Company further provided revenue guidance for its fiscal 2012 third quarter in the range of $10 to $11 million.
After releasing its fiscal 2012 third quarter results, Envivio hosted a conference call for analysts, media representatives and investors during which defendants acknowledged that the Company had been experiencing a significant numberof project delays with its existing customers, particularly in North America and Western Europe, which had been key growth areas for the Company. Defendants further admitted that the Company had also been experiencing a severe lengthening in its sales cycle for obtaining new business. While the Request for Proposal ("RFP") process, which Envivio engages into bid for and obtain new business, would traditionally take between 3 and 6 months to complete, the RFP process had slowed considerably and it was now taking between 6 and 12 months for a contract for a new project to be closed.
On this news, Envivio's stock price dropped again, falling to $2.15 per share on September 7, 2012, a one-day decline of more than 20%, on high volume.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3663
Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Envivio, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | ENVI |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.envivio.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Michael Toth, et al. v. Envivio, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Notice of Removal of State Court Action | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 11/02/2012 | ||
| 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