Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/17/2004 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: January 16, 2003

According to the docket, a Stipulation for Partial Settlement was entered on December 8, 2003. On March 17, 2004, the Court entered the Orders granting the motion for attorney fees and reimbursement of expense and granting the motion for Final Approval of Partial Settlement, Class Certification, and Plan of Allocation. The Court further entered the Order and Judgment dismissing the case against all defendants except Ernst & Young per the settlement agreement. The case was later dismissed with prejudice as to defendant Ernst & Young.

In a Press Release dated 12/18/03, ClearOne Communications, Inc. has received preliminary court approval of a settlement, and the hearing to consider final approval of the settlement is scheduled for 3/16/04.

In a Press Release dated 12/4/03, the terms of the settlement, which are subject to court approval, require the company to pay the shareholder class $5 million in cash and to transfer to them 1.2 million shares of the company's common stock. The cash payment is to be made in two equal installments of $2.5 million, the first of which has already been made and the second of which is due no later than
January 15, 2005.

The originalComplaint charges ClearOne and certain of its executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning ClearOne's revenue and earnings caused ClearOne's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. The Complaint alleges that, in order to inflate the price of ClearOne's stock, defendants caused the Company to falsely report its financial results
during the Class Period through improper revenue recognition practices,
including recognizing revenue for shipments to distributors even though
the distributors had the right to return or exchange unsold goods. On
January 15, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, the Securities and
Exchange Commission filed a federal lawsuit alleging that defendants
violated numerous federal securities laws, primarily through a program
of "channel stuffing" - shipping large amounts of inventory to the
company's distributors with the understanding that the distributors did
not have to pay for these products until the distributors resold the products, and that in some instances the distributors were given the right to return or exchange products the distributors were unable to sell.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CLRO
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: D. Utah
DOCKET #: 03-CV-0062
JUDGE: Hon. Paul G. Cassell
DATE FILED: 01/16/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/01/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/15/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
  2. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
  3. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR)
  4. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) (former)
  5. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
  6. Henricksen & Henricksen
  7. Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP
  8. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  9. Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego)
  10. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
  11. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Utah
DOCKET #: 03-CV-0062
JUDGE: Hon. Paul G. Cassell
DATE FILED: 06/30/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/17/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/15/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Anderson & Karrenberg
    700 Bank One Tower, 50 West Broadway, Anderson & Karrenberg, UT 84101
    801.534.1700 ·
  2. Henricksen & Henricksen

    ·
  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