Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/18/2007 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 02, 2005

According to an article dated April 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York April 18 tossed out a consolidated class securities fraud action charging that Sierra Wireless Inc. and its officials misrepresented the telecom concern's future prospects and business strategies (In re Sierra Wireless Inc. Securities Litigation, S.D.N.Y., No. 05-md-1696 (SHS), 4/18/07). "In sum," Judge Sidney H. Stein wrote for the court, "the statements that form the basis of this action are broadly optimistic projections of future performance that plaintiffs allege are false and misleading. However, plaintiffs have not specified why or how these statements are false or misleading and therefore have not supplied sufficient facts in their lengthy complaint to support their allegations." The court declared that the securities laws "neither require corporate officers to adopt a crabbed, defeatist view of the company's business prospects nor permit dissatisfied shareholders to assert serious allegations of fraud based on the perfect hindsight afforded by the passage of time." … The court found that the plaintiffs' other allegations likewise failed to state a claim for securities fraud and dismissed the suit without prejudice. The court granted the plaintiffs 21 days to file an amended complaint.

On August 26, 2005, the Court entered the Order from the Multidistrict Litigation Panel. According to the Order, the actions were coordinated or consolidated under 1:05-md-1696. On December 19, 2005, the Court entered the Order appointing co-lead plaintiffs and approving co-lead plaintiffs’ selection of co-lead counsel. On February 21, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

The original Complaint alleges that Sierra and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period concerning the Company's prospects and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Sierra Wireless securities.

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following materially adverse facts: (i) that Sierra's strategy to correct its deficiency in technology by introducing the Voq Smartphone was flawed and its business model was not working; (ii) that Sierra was facing increasing competition, intensified by its failure to enter into the WCDMA (wideband code-division multiple access) market; (iii) that Sierra's recent venture into the Smartphone market with the introduction of its new Voq line was a serious misstep, as it did little to add revenue and further seriously harmed Sierra's relationship with a prime customer palmOne as its Voq Smartphone would compete with palmOne's Treo -- the product for which Sierra was a supplier; (iv) that Sierra's dependence on revenue from palmOne in its original equipment manufacturer ("OEM") business was substantially greater than had been reported; and (v) that Sierra's customers were materially over- inventoried, which would lead to greatly diminished orders and sales in future quarters.

Further, on or around January 26, 2005, Sierra issued a press release announcing that its revenue for the fourth quarter of 2004 was well below the previous guidance and that it expected a steep decline in its revenue going forward. As a result, on the next trading day, January 27, 2005, Sierra's stock plummeted 38% to $8.97 per share.

Several class action lawsuits have also been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: Canada

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SWIR
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 05-CV-1299
JUDGE: Hon. Kimba M. Wood
DATE FILED: 02/02/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/28/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/26/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Dyer & Shuman, LLP
    801 East 17th Avenue, Dyer & Shuman, LLP, CO 80218-1417
    303.861.3003 800.711.6483 · info@dyershuman.com
  2. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (NY)
    1501 Broadway, Suite 1416, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (NY), NY 10036
    917.510.000 646.366-089 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
    100 Park Avenue, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, NY 10017
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@glrslaw.com
  4. 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
  5. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@lerachlaw.com
  6. 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
  7. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
  8. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  9. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  10. Smith & Smith LLP
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Smith & Smith LLP, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
  11. Stull, Stull & Brody (New York)
    6 East 45th Street, Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), NY 10017
    310.209.2468 310.209.2087 · SSBNY@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 05-CV-1299
JUDGE: Hon. Kimba M. Wood
DATE FILED: 02/21/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/28/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/26/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@lerachlaw.com
  2. 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
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date