Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 12/04/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: December 15, 2003

On January 3, 2008, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal as to the December 4, 2007 Judgment. The appeal is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

According to an article dated December 6, 2007, in an order handed down on Wednesday, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a suit against Redback Networks Inc. The court did not allow the plaintiffs leave to amend. The case was originally brought by a class of shareholders who purchased Redback stock from November 1999 to October 2003. The suit alleged that “Redback in essence bought revenues from Qwest Communications International Inc., and others through bribery and quid pro quo arrangements,” according to court documents.

Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Consolidated Complaint on June 1, 2007.

On March 30, 2007, the Honorable Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled in response to briefings and oral arguments from the parties involved. He granted PricewaterhouseCooper's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint without leave to amend (PricewaterhouseCooper operated as Redback Network's outside auditor), and granted Redback Network's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint with leave to amend. Judge Fogel noted that the Plaintiffs have sixty (60) days to file an amended class action complaint, but that "in light of the numerous opportunities Plaintiffs have been afforded to plead a viable claim, further leave to amend the allegations regarding loss causation and other aspects of the claims addressed in this order will not be granted."

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q For the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2006, on December 15, 2003, the first of several putative class action complaints, Robert W. Baker, Jr., et al. v. Joel M. Arnold, et al., No. C-03-5642 JF, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. At least ten nearly identical complaints were filed in the same court. All of the complaints eventually were consolidated into a single consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs have amended the consolidated complaint several times. Two of plaintiffs’ amendments of the consolidated complaint came in response to orders by the Court granting defendants’ motions to dismiss earlier versions of the consolidated complaint and allowing plaintiffs leave to amend. The current version of the consolidated complaint is the Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint, which was filed on May 19, 2006. The Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint names 12 of our current and former officers and directors as defendants. We are not named as a defendant. The complaint asserts claims on behalf of all purchasers of our shares of common stock from November 27, 1999 through October 10, 2003. The complaint purports to allege violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the alleged failure to timely disclose information primarily relating to certain alleged transactions between us and Qwest Communications International, Inc. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On July 10, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Court heard arguments on the motion to dismiss on September 15, 2006. The Court has not yet issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss.

The original Complaint alleges that Defendants made a series of false and misleading statements starting on April 12, 2000. The Complaint alleges that the press releases issued on April 12, 2000, July 12, 2000, October 13, 2000, January 17, 2001, April 11, 2001, July 11, 2001, October 10, 2001, January 16, 2002, April
10, 2002, July 10, 2002, October 9, 2002 and January 15, 2002 were materially
false and misleading. In addition, the Complaint alleges that the Company's
Form 10-Q's and Form 10-K filed with the SEC on May 15, 2000, August 10, 2000,
November 13, 2000, April 2, 2001, May 15, 2001, August 14, 2001, March 27,
2002, April 22, 2002, August 14, 2002, November 14, 2002 and March 31, 2003
were materially false and misleading. The Complaint alleges that each of these
above referenced press releases and SEC filings were materially false and
misleading because, during the Class Period Defendants failed to disclose that
the only way that Redback was able to report record financial results was
because shares of Redback stock were being given to Qwest insiders in exchange
for sales contracts from Qwest. In fact, Qwest did not need or want the large
quantities of product it had ordered and, in fact, had no strong obligation to
purchase the products. On November 3, 2003, Redback filed for Chapter 11
Bankruptcy protection. After trading as high as $179.12 during the Class
Period, Redback's shares are now worthless.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RBAK
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 #: 03-CV-05642
JUDGE: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
DATE FILED: 12/15/2003
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/12/2000
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/10/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
  2. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
  3. Grant & Eisenhofer (Wilmington)
  4. Green & Jigarjian LLP
  5. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
  6. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  8. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
  9. Wechsler Harwood LLP
  10. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
  11. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 03-CV-05642
JUDGE: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
DATE FILED: 06/01/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/27/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/10/2003
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Anderlini, Finkelstein, Emerick & Smoot
    400 S. El Camino Real, Anderlini, Finkelstein, Emerick & Smoot, CA 94402
    650-348-010 650-348-096 · Info@Afelaw.com
  2. Grant & Eisenhofer (Wilmington)
    1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Grant & Eisenhofer (Wilmington), DE 19801
    302.622.7000 302.622.7100 · lawyers@gelaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date