Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/31/2008 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 12, 2004

On March 31, 2008 the judge entered his Final Order finalizing the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice. In the same order he awarding counsel 25% of the settlement in attorneys' fees and reimbursed out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $383,790.94. According to Sonus' Form 10-K filed on March 8, 2008 the $40 million settlement reached their insurance coverage limits.

According to a press release dated November 8, 2007, on November 7, 2007, the Company reached an agreement to settle litigation against the Company and certain of its former and current officers alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company's 2004 restatement. Pursuant to the settlement, which is subject to court approval, the Company has agreed to pay $40 million to the shareholder classes in the case. The Company has recorded a $40 million charge and related liability in the third quarter of fiscal 2007 for the full amount of the settlement.

According to an article dated October 31, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a stock broker's motion for class certification of a securities fraud class action against Sonus Networks, finding that the broker had standing to sue the company because it purchased the stock directly and relied upon the company's alleged misrepresentations to buy the stock.

On June 29, 2007, Sonus filed a motion for reconsideration of the judge's ruling denying their motion to dismiss. Defendants claim that in light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Tellabs v Makor case, the "fraudulent intent may be plausible, yet less cogent, than other, nonculpable explanations for the defendant's conduct."

On May 10, 2006, U.S. District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock issued the Memoradum and Order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On July 31, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the class.

As disclosed by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2006, beginning in February 2004, a number of purported shareholder class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Sonus and certain of its current officers and directors. On June 28, 2004, the court consolidated the claims. On December 1, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, relating to Sonus’ restatement of its financial results for 2001, 2002, and the first three quarters of 2003. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Sonus issued a series of false or misleading statements to the market concerning our revenues, earnings, and financial position. Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused Sonus’ stock price to be artificially inflated. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Sonus’ common stock during the period from March 28, 2002 through March 26, 2004. On January 28, 2005, Sonus filed a motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim filed by the individual defendants. On June 1, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint that included the same claims and substantially similar allegations as set forth in the prior complaint. On September 12, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss this amended complaint. On December 10, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motions and took the matter under advisement.

The complaint charges Sonus Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous statements to the
market concerning the Company's financial results, which failed to disclose
and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (a) that
defendants had improperly and untimely recognized revenue on certain of the
Company's customer transactions; (b) that defendants violated Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles and the Company's own internal policies
regarding the timing of revenue recognition; and (c) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's revenues, net income and earnings per share published
during the Class Period were materially false and misleading. On February 11, 2004, after the close of regular trading, Sonus shocked the
market when it announced that the Company had identified certain issues,
practices and actions of certain employees relating to both the timing of
revenue recognized from certain customer transactions and to certain other
financial statement accounts, which may affect the Company's 2003 financial
statements and possibly financial statements for prior periods. Prior to
disclosing these adverse facts, Sonus completed a $126.14 million public
offering, and Sonus insiders sold approximately $2 million of their personally-
held shares to the unsuspecting public. The next morning, when the market opened for trading, shares of the Company's
stock fell as low as $5.02 per share, a decline of $1.67 per share, or 24.9%,
on extremely high trading volume.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SONS
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. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 04-CV-10294
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 02/12/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/03/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/11/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
    One Liberty Square, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), MA 2109
    617.542.8300 617.230.0903 · info@bermanesq.com
  2. Brian Felgoise
    230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 , Brian Felgoise, PA 19102
    215.735.6810 215/735.5185. ·
  3. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  4. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  5. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.com
  6. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
  7. Moulton & Gans LLP
    133 Federal Street, Moulton & Gans LLP, MA 2110
    617.369.7979 ·
  8. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  9. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  10. Schoengold & Sporn PC (New York)
    233 Broadway 39Th Floor, Schoengold & Sporn PC (New York), NY 10279
    212.964.0046 ·
  11. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    75 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
  12. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 04-CV-10294
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 08/05/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/28/2002
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/26/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA)
    One Liberty Square, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), MA 2109
    617.542.8300 617.230.0903 · info@bermanesq.com
  2. Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP
    595 Market Street, Suite 2300, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP, CA 94105-2835
    800.778.1822 415.777.5189 · info@gbcsf.com
  3. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  4. Moulton & Gans LLP
    133 Federal Street, Moulton & Gans LLP, MA 2110
    617.369.7979 ·
  5. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  6. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  7. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    75 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date