Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/22/2008 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: December 13, 2005

On September 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

According to a press release dated August 25, 2008, a judge has dismissed a proposed securities class action against automated teller machine maker Diebold Inc., saying the plaintiffs didn't plead their case adequately enough for the lawsuit to proceed. In a ruling Friday, Judge Peter C. Economus of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio said that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of pleading specific facts. Judge Economus said Friday that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead scienter. The facts alleged, when viewed cumulatively, persuaded the judge that the most plausible conclusion is that defendants must or should have known about Diebold's problems. The plaintiffs, though, failed to show as required that the defendants acted at least recklessly, the judge said.

The plaintiffs in the cases which allege violations of the federal securities laws have filed motions to consolidate these actions into a single proceeding and for the court to name a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs’ counsel. On October 20, 2006, Judge Peter C. Economus entered a consolidation order for three classes: 1) Securities Actions, 2) Derivative Actions and 3) ERISA Actions. Further, according to the Order, Judge Economus appointed the Diebold Lead Plaintiff Group as lead plaintiff and appointed Milberg Weiss Bershad & Shulman LLP and Scott & Scott LLC as co-lead counsel. On April 27, 2007 a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed by the plaintiffs and the defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 13, 2007.

The original complaint alleges that Diebold Inc. and individual defendants violated provisions of the United States securities laws causing artificial inflation of the Company's stock price. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company lacked a credible state of internal controls and corporate compliance and remained unable to assure the quality and working order of its voting machine products. It is further alleged that the Company's false and misleading statements served to conceal the dimensions and scope of internal problems at the Company, impacting product quality, strategic planning, forecasting and guidance and culminating in false representations of astonishingly low and incredibly inaccurate restructuring charges for the 2005 fiscal year, which grossly understated the true costs and problems defendants faced to restructure the Company. The complaint also alleges over $2.7 million of insider trading proceeds obtained by individual defendants during the Class Period.

The complaint further alleges that investors finally learned the truth about the adverse impact of the Company's alleged defective and deficient inventory-related controls and systems on Diebold's financial performance. As a result of defendants' shocking news and disclosures of September 21, 2005, the price of Diebold shares plunged 15.5% on unusually high volume, falling from $44.37 per share on September 20, 2005, to $37.47 per share on September 21, 2005, for a one- day drop of $6.90 per share on volume of 6.1 million shares -- nearly eight times the average daily trading volume.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Office Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DBD
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: N.D. Ohio
DOCKET #: 05-CV-2873
JUDGE: Hon. Peter C. Economus
DATE FILED: 12/13/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/22/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/21/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta)
    2300 Promenade II; 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta), GA 30309
    888.873.3999 404.876.4476 · info@chitwoodlaw.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. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  4. 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
  5. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
    330 Main Street, Schatz & Nobel, P.C., CT 06106
    800.797.5499 860.493.6290 · sn06106@AOL.com
  6. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
  7. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  8. Smith & Smith LLP
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Smith & Smith LLP, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
  9. 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: N.D. Ohio
DOCKET #: 05-CV-2873
JUDGE: Hon. Peter C. Economus
DATE FILED: 04/27/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/22/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/21/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP (New York), NY 10119
    212.594.5300 212.868.1229 · info@milbergweiss.com
  2. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  3. Scott & Scott LLP (New York - Former)
    75 Rockefeller Plaza, 19th Floor, Suite 1950, Scott & Scott LLP (New York - Former), NY 10019
    212.710.1040 212.710.1040 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  4. Scott & Scott LLP (Ohio - Former)
    33 River Street, Scott & Scott LLP (Ohio - Former), OH 44022
    440.247.8200 440.247.8200 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date