Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/29/2006 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: May 25, 2005

The original complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period representations regarding TIBCO were materially false and misleading when made for the following reasons: (i) TIBCO's integration of the Staffware PLC acquisition was not proceeding as well as defendants represented; (ii) that Staffware was performing well below expectations; and (iii) TIBCO did not maintain an adequate system of internal financial, operational or disclosure controls so as to reasonably assure the accuracy, completeness and veracity of the Company's public statements and representations to investors.

On March 1, 2005, defendants announced that TIBCO's results for 1Q:F05 were well below guidance. In fact, shares of TIBCO were halted in after-market trading after the Company revealed that preliminary data showed that Q1:F05 revenues would reach well below the FirstCall consensus mean estimates. While defendants had previously stated that the Staffware acquisition was substantially completed and that the integration was proceeding according to plan, defendants now revealed that this was not true and that weakness in Europe and delays in closing deals would result in non-GAAP earnings per share well between consensus mean estimates. During TIBCO's 1Q:F05 conference call, defendant Ranadive revealed that Staffware not only remained unintegrated, but because of integration-related problems, European sales had been paralyzed.

The complaint further alleges that on the following day, as shares of TIBCO resumed trading, the Company's stock price declined precipitously, falling from a close of $8.90 per share in regular trading on March 1, 2005, to below $7.00 the following day, on very high trading volume of over 52 million shares. Market commentators stated that the decline would have been worse had TIBCO stock not evidenced an uncharacteristic trading pattern in the days immediately prior to defendants' belated disclosure, which indicated that the negative news may have been leaked to certain investors.

On February 24, 2006, the Court entered the Order consolidating the cases and granting the motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 16, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on April 17, 2006. On May 24, 2006, the Honorable Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint within twenty days. It was further ordered that Defendants must respond to the new complaint within twenty-five days after its filing. On June 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 29, 2006, the Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. On October 26, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On August 18, 2008, the Court entered the Mandate of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellants' motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal is granted.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TIBX
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 #: 05-CV-02146
JUDGE: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
DATE FILED: 05/25/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/21/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/01/2005
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. 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
  3. 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
  4. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  5. Wechsler Harwood LLP
    488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, Wechsler Harwood LLP, NY 10022
    212.935.7400 · info@whhf.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 05-CV-02146
JUDGE: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
DATE FILED: 06/14/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/21/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/01/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
    355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP , CA 90071
    213.617.9007 213.617.9185 · info@milbergweiss.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
No Document Title Filing Date