Processing your request


please wait...

 | Case Page

 | Case Page |

Case Page

 

Siebel Systems, Inc.

Case Summary

Siebel Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation

Case Summary

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 12/28/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 10, 2004

On January 23, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from the judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. On January 25, 2008, the Court entered the Judgment from the U.S. Court of Appeals, affirming the judgment of the District Court.

On August 27, 2004, the plaintiff filed an Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on October 12, 2004. On January 28, 2005, Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On March 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 27, 2005. According to the Judgment issued by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer on December 28, 2005, the Court having granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend, judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs.

The original complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements to the marketplace that artificially inflated the price of Siebel Systems shares. In particular, the Company misrepresented its business and future prospects by overstating customer acceptance of its new product offerings - including Siebel 7 CRM - and failed to disclose that "independent" customer satisfaction surveys which persuaded investors that a vast majority of the Company's customers would purchase products from the Company in the future were in fact carried out by an affiliated company and could not be relied upon.

The complaint further alleges that on July 17, 2002, Siebel announced its second quarter June 30, 2002 earnings reporting a precipitous drop in revenues of more than 15% and a 33% shortfall in earnings compared to consensus analyst forecasts. The Company also confirmed the continuing slide in demand for Siebel Systems' products by slashing revenue forecasts for the remainder of 2002 by an additional 25% - or $600,000,000 below guidance provided by defendants just six months prior. In unusually heavy volume of 65 million shares traded, Siebel Systems share prices dropped $2.13 on July 18 to close at $9.61.

Company & Securities Information

Defendant: Siebel Systems, Inc.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SEBL
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.

First Identified Complaint

Wollrab, et al. v. Siebel Systems, Inc., et al.

COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-00983
JUDGE: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
DATE FILED: 03/10/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/01/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia)
  2. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego - former)
  3. Bernard M. Gross
  4. Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton, FL)
  5. Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman LLP (San Diego, CA)
  6. Geller Rudman, PLLC.
  7. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
  8. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA)
  9. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  10. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
  11. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  12. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  13. Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles)
First Identified Complaint (FIC) Filings:
No Document Title Filing Date
1 Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws 03/10/2004
2 Memorandum In Support Of The Motion Of The Wollrab Group For Consolidation, Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And For Approval Of Selection Of Lead And Liaison Counsel 05/10/2004
3 Memorandum Of Points Authorities In Support Of The Tillis Group’s Motion For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiff And Lead Counsel, And For Consolidation Of All Related Actions 05/10/2004
4 Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion Of Allan G. Carlson For Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of His Selection Of Counsel 05/10/2004
5 Declaration Of Linda M. Fong In Support Of The Motion Of The Wollrab Group For Consolidation, Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And For Approval Of Selection Of Lead And Liaison Counsel 05/10/2004
6 Declaration Of Linda M. Fong In Support Of Motion To Appoint Dominick Cerrone As Lead Plaintiff, And To Approve Plaintiff’s Choice Of Counsel 05/10/2004
7 Declaration Of Marc L. Godino In Support Of The Tillis Group’s Motion For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiff And Lead Counsel, And For Consolidation Of All Related Actions 05/10/2004
8 Declaration Of Marc L. Godino In Support Of Motion For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of Plaintiff’s Selection Of Counsel 05/10/2004
9 Notice Of Motion And Motion Of The Wollrab Group For Consolidation, Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And For Approval Of Selection Of Lead And Liaison Counsel 05/10/2004
10 Notice Of Motion And Motion To Appoint Dominick Cerrone As Lead Plaintiff And For Appointment Of Lead Counsel; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof 05/10/2004
11 Plaintiff Dominick Cerrone’s Notice Of Motion And Motion To Consolidate All Related Actions For All Purposes; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof 05/10/2004
12 The Tillis Group’s Notice Of Motion And Motion For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiff And Lead Counsel, And For Consolidation Of All Related Actions 05/10/2004
13 Notice Of Motion And Motion For Appointment Of Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of Plaintiff’s Selection Of Counsel 05/10/2004
14 [Proposed] Order Granting Motion For Appointment Of The Tillis Group As Lead Plaintiff; To Approve Lead Plaintiff’s Choice Of Counsel; And For Consolidation Of All Related Actions 05/10/2004
15 [Proposed] Order Appointing Allan G. Carlson As Lead Plaintiff And Approving Selection Of Lead Counsel 05/10/2004
16 Declaration Of Marisa C. Livesay In Support Of Motion To Appoint Lead Plaintiffs And To Approve Lead Plaintiff's Choice Of Counsel 05/11/2004
17 Supplemental Declaration Of Marisa C. Livesay In Support Of Motion To Appoint Lead Plaintiff 05/11/2004
18 Notice Of Motion And Motion To Appoint Lead Plaintiffs And To Approve Lead Plaintiffs’ Choice Of Counsel, And Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof 05/11/2004
19 Order Appointing The Policeman’s Annuity And Benefit Fund Of Chicago As Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of Lead Plaintiff’s Choice Of Counsel 05/11/2004
20 The Tillis Group’s Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Opposition To Motions For Appointment Of Lead Plaintif And Lead Counsel 05/28/2004
21 Memorandum In Further Support Of Motion To Appoint Dominick Cerrone As Lead Plaintiff And For Appointment Of Lead Counsel 05/28/2004

Reference Complaint

In re Siebel Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-00983
JUDGE: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
DATE FILED: 03/01/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/01/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2002
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia)
  2. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego - former)
  3. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
  4. Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
  5. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
  6. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
  7. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA)
  8. Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross (Philadelphia) (former)
  9. Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel (Bala Cynwyd)
  10. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
  11. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
Reference Complaint (REF) Filings:
No Document Title Filing Date
1 Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint 08/27/2004
2 Lead Plaintiff's [Corrected] First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint 03/01/2005
3 Clerk's Notice 09/12/2005
4 Notice Of Recent Authority In Support Of Lead Plaintiff's Opposition To Defendants' Motion To Dismiss 11/02/2005
5 Civil Minutes 11/07/2005
6 Judgment 12/28/2005
7 U.S. District Court Civil Docket 12/28/2005
8 Memorandum and Order 12/28/2005
9 Bill Of Costs 01/11/2006
10 Certificate Of Service 01/26/2006
11 Lead Plaintiff's Objection To Defendants' Bill Of Costs 01/26/2006
12 Declaration Of Samuel M. Ward In Support Of Lead Plaintiff's Objection To Defendants' Bill Of Costs 01/26/2006
13 Declaration Of Stephen R. Basser In Support Of Lead Plaintiff's Objection To Defendants' Bill Of Costs 01/26/2006
14 Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Staying Taxation Of Costs Pending The Disposition Of Lead Plaintiff’s Appeal 02/01/2006
15 Clerk’s Notice Re: Failure To File Electronically And/Or Register As An E-Filer 02/02/2006
16 Stipulation And Order Staying Taxation Of Costs Pending The Disposition Of Lead Plaintiff’s Appeal 02/03/2006
17 U.S. District Court Civil Docket 01/28/2008
18 Mandate 01/28/2008

Related District Court Filings

No Document Title Filing Date
1 Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws 03/23/2004
2 Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws 03/23/2004
3 Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded 03/25/2004

Courts of Appeal Filings

No Document Title Filing Date
1 Memorandum [From US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit] 01/17/2008
2 Judgment [From the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit] 01/17/2008
 
 

Cases