Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

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 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.
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)
No Document Title Filing Date
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)
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date