Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/11/2004 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: February 13, 2002

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, in March 2004, the court granted defendants motion to dismiss, without leave to amend, and entered final judgment against plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed. In December 2005, after complete briefing and oral argument, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal and final judgment.

In a press release dated August 13, 2003 a federal judge will consider Juniper Networks Inc.'s (JNPR) motion to dismiss an amended securities class action lawsuit next month. A group of former shareholders accuse Juniper and certain members of company management of making false and misleading statements concerning Juniper's performance and outlook. The plaintiffs also charge the defendants violated federal securities law. The former shareholders seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief, according to Juniper's latest quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

According to the press release, the hearing to consider the motion to dismiss the lawsuit is scheduled on Sept. 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a Juniper spokeswoman said. The lawsuit was initially filed in the first quarter of 2002 on behalf of stockholders who purchased Juniper's stock between April 12, 2001 and June 7, 2001. During that time, the stock fell from a high of $65.58 on April 19 to $46.43 on June 7. In March, the court granted Juniper's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, according to the SEC filing. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in April. Juniper filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in May. The court will consider that motion next month.

The original complaint charges Juniper and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants stated that the Company was on track to have 2ndQ 01 revenues of $330+ million and earnings per share (``EPS'') of $0.25, and that Deferred Revenue (i.e., revenue not yet recognized because customers had not yet accepted products) had declined because customer acceptance cycles were shorter than in the past. Defendants also represented the Company was on track to report 2001 EPS of $0.90-$1.00, pro forma, causing its stock to trade as high as $69.50. Defendants took advantage of this inflation selling 747,463 shares, for proceeds of $42.9 million.

The complaint further alleges that on or around June 8, 2001, Juniper disclosed that its 2ndQ 01 revenues would be much lower than previously represented and earnings would be less than half of prior estimates. Defendants also admitted that customer acceptance cycles were in fact much longer than in the past, stretching from days to months. One analyst noted that the Company's announcement was matched in ``severity by its tardiness.'' On this news, Juniper shares dropped to $38.02, or more than 46% lower than the Class Period high of $69.50. Ultimately, Juniper reported a loss for 2001 and pro forma EPS of just $0.50, half what defendants represented, and its stock has declined to $13.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: JNPR
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 02-CV-00749
JUDGE: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 02/13/2002
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/12/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/07/2001
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
    P.O. Box 25438, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR), AR 72221-5438
    501.312.8500 501.312.8505 ·
  2. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates
    519 Alleghany Bldg., 429 Forbes Avenue, Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates, PA 15219
    412.391.5164 ·
  4. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence)
    335 Central Avenue, Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Lawrence), NY 11559
    516.374.0707 516.295.3473 · securitiesfraud@comcast.net
  5. Leo W. Desmond
    2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 204, Leo W. Desmond, FL 33409
    561.712.8000 561.712.8000 · stocklaw@bellsouth.net
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
    100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  7. Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC

    800-470-6824 312-621-1750 ·
  8. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  9. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  10. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 02-CV-00749
JUDGE: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 04/14/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/12/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/08/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 · info@lerachlaw.com
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    401 B Street, Suite 1700, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    206.749.5544 206.749.9978 · info@lerachlaw.com
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA)
    100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  4. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date