According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, on July 27, 2005, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint. On September 8, 2005, the Court, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice and the matter was concluded.
As disclosed by the same SEC filing, between June 2 and July 1, 2004, four purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of California, the Southern District of California, and the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The actions commenced in the courts for the Southern District of California and the Southern District of New York were transferred to the Northern District of California. All four actions were consolidated into one action in the Northern District of California and a consolidated amended compliant (“CAC”) was filed in January 2005 seeking unspecified damages. The CAC alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of investors in the Company’s American depositary receipts (“ADRs”) who purchased the ADRs between April 23, 2003 and May 5, 2004 (the “Class Period”). The complaint alleged that during that Class Period, the Company and the individual defendants made false or misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings regarding, among other things, the Company’s acquisition of Crystal Decisions, its Enterprise 6 product and the Company’s forecasts and financial results for the three months ended March 31, 2004. In February 2005, the Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the CAC.
The original complaint charges Business Objects and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Business Objects is a worldwide provider of business intelligence solutions. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused Business Objects shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements. The true facts, which were known to the defendants but actively concealed by defendants from shareholders, were as follows: (a) the Company's integration of the Crystal Decisions acquisition was a disaster and the defendants were struggling to hide the integration problems in order to save face; (b) many of the Company's customers/partners were confused about the synchronization of pricing and new solution bundles and delaying their purchases, or foregoing them all together, in favor of Business Objects' competition; (c) the Company was internally projecting poor demand for the Company's Enterprise 6 products, a material drop in European orders and losing significant sales to Microsoft and Cognos; (d) the Company's software license revenue growth was not as robust as defendants projected for the first quarter of 2004, and in fact, half of the gain ($12-$13 million) was attributable to currency gains associated with the Euro vs. the dollar; (e) the acquisition costs of Crystal Decisions far exceeded the Company's projections resulting in an erosion of the Company's growth margins; and (f) the Company's balance in deferred revenue was inflated due to manipulations in the deferred revenue balance of Crystal Decisions upon acquisition.
Further, the complaint alleges that on April 30, 2004, shares of Business Objects plunged as much as 22% after its first-quarter profit fell, coming in at the lower end of its target range and missing analyst forecasts. Then on May 5, 2004, it was reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission was looking into the Company's 'practices with respect to backlog.'