Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/11/2008 (Other)

Filing Date: August 16, 2005

The original complaint charges Symbol and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Symbol engages in the design, development, manufacture, and service of products and systems used in enterprise mobility solutions.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous positive statements about the Company's performance and future prospects. As alleged in the Complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, which were known, or recklessly disregarded by them, at all relevant times: (a) that Symbol had inadequate and deficient internal and financial controls; (b) that Symbol's reported expenses were understated; (c) that Symbol had massive overcapacity, inefficient operations and obsolete assets; (d) that Symbol was experiencing declining demand for its products; and (e) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements concerning the Company's financial prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

As the market learned the true information about Symbol, the inflation caused by Defendants' misrepresentations was removed and the price of Symbol common stock fell by nearly 50% from its Class Period high.

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q For The Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2006, several purported class actions have been consolidated for all purposes and on April 24, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron Workers Local # 580 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved their retention of lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. On August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed its Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which alleges that the defendants misrepresented that, in connection with settlements of earlier criminal and civil investigations, the Company had implemented processes to improve its internal controls when, in fact, its internal controls were insufficient. In addition, the lead plaintiff in the New Class Actions alleges that as a result of the insufficient internal controls, the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing statements concerning our prospects, financial results and financial controls that were allegedly false and misleading. The plaintiffs allege that they were damaged by, among other things, the decline in the price of the Company’s stock on August 1, 2005, the date the Company released its results for the second quarter of 2005.

On February 26, 2007, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the the Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 11, 2008, Senior Judge Denis R. Hurley administratively closed the case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Peripherals
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SBL
Company Market: New York SE
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: E.D. New York
DOCKET #: 05-CV-03923
JUDGE: Hon. Denis R. Hurley
DATE FILED: 08/16/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/10/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/01/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
    3620 East Layton Ave., Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, WI 53110
    866-264-3995 414-482-8001 · inquiry@ademilaw.com
  2. 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
  3. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
    275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, NY 10016
    212.682.1818 212.682.1892 · email@murrayfrank.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: E.D. New York
DOCKET #: 05-CV-03923
JUDGE: Hon. Denis R. Hurley
DATE FILED: 08/30/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/29/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/01/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (former Chicago)
    1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2225, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (former Chicago), IL 60602
    312.377.1181 312.377.1184 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date