Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/07/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 07, 2004

By the Order dated May 23, 2005, the motion to dismiss is granted with leave to amend. Plaintiff is allowed until June 24, 2005 to file an amended complaint. Pursuant to the Order dated July 5, 2005, the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to meet the pleading requirements of the PSLRA, and these consolidated actions are dismissed. That same day, the also Court entered Judgment dismissing the action.

The original Complaint alleges that Callidus, a provider of enterprise incentive management ('EIM') software systems, and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false statements. Specifically, Callidus failed to disclose: (i) Callidus was suffering at the time of the IPO due to competition from established enterprise software and ERP vendors, who could bundle their EIM offerings with other software products and therefore compete more aggressively on prices; (ii) Callidus was, prior to its IPO, experiencing a material adverse trend in license revenues; (iii) as a result of the adverse trend in 'license' revenue, Callidus' future 'service' revenue would be adversely impacted for future quarters; (iv) Callidus used as a barometer for its sales forecasts its 18 quota-carrying sales representatives who were severely behind on hitting their unrealistic quotas; and (v) prior to the IPO, Callidus had planned on bringing its Cezanne software team 'in-house,' which would dramatically impact the Company's earnings per share in future quarters.

On June 24, 2004, before the market opened, Callidus issued a press release announcing that its 'chairman and CEO resigned, and it warned that second-quarter and full-year results would not meet . . . financial targets.' On this news, shares of Callidus fell to $5.01 per share, well below the Class Period high and even the IPO price.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CALD
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-2707
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 07/07/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/19/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/23/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
  2. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  3. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  4. Wechsler Harwood LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 04-CV-2707
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 11/29/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/22/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/23/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (former Pennysylvania)
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
  3. Green Welling LLP (San Francisco)
  4. Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
  5. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  6. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  8. Wechsler Harwood LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available