Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 09/23/2008 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 23, 2006

The original complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants' representations concerning the Company's financial condition, impressive income growth, and various other statements in the Company's quarterly and annual financial results and SEC filings were materially false and misleading because defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the Company's reported financial results and growth were attributable to improper accounting practices, including improper revenue recognition practices, which resulted in an overstatement of the Company's revenues. Unbeknownst to investors, the Company's internal controls and procedures and, as a result, the Company's projections and reported financial results were seriously flawed. Furthermore, the Company's earnings were not increasing in the amounts that had been represented by defendants, and the Company's reported earnings statements for the interim periods were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

The complaint alleges that on November 7, 2005, after the market closed, Terayon announced that the Company "is reviewing the recognition of revenue for certain transactions during prior periods." More specifically, an internal review was initiated after the Company determined "that certain revenues recognized in the second half of fiscal year 2004 from a customer may have been recorded in incorrect periods."

The complaint further alleges that on March 1, 2006, Terayon issued a press release announcing that the Company's "consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004 and for the four quarters of 2004 and the first two quarters of 2005 should no longer be relied upon and will be restated." In response to these revelations, the next day, March 2, 2006, Terayon's stock price fell $0.37 per share-a more than 13% decline in the stock's value - on extremely heavy trading volume of more than four million shares.

On November 8, 2006, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case, replacing I.B.L. Investments Ltd. On January 8, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between June 28, 2001 and March 1, 2006. The amended complaint adds several individual defendants, and also names Ernst & Young as a defendant. The amended complaint incorporates the prior allegations and includes new allegations. On March 9, 2007, Terayon and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 17, 2007 the judge issued an order removing Terayon's and the individual defendants' motions to dismiss the case, citing that parties have reached "an agreement in principle" to settle. On November 13, 2007, defendant Ernst & Young LLP filed a notice of settlement. On February 28, 2008, a joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement was filed by the defendants. Under the Proposed Settlement, Defendants agreed to pay $2,730,000. On April 14, 2008, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken filed an Order preliminarily approving the settlement. A Fairness Hearing is set for September 18, 2008.

On September 18, 2008, the Settlement Hearing was held before Judge Claudia Wilken who approved the settlement. On September 23, 2008, the Court entered the Order awarding attorneys’ fees in the amount of 25 percent of the settlement fund and expenses totaling $44,821.88. That day, the Court also entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice approving the settlement and dismissing the action.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TERN
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 #: 06-CV-03936
JUDGE: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 06/23/2006
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/28/2004
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/01/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 06-CV-03936
JUDGE: Hon. Martin J. Jenkins
DATE FILED: 01/08/2007
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/28/2001
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/01/2006
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (New Orleans)
    650 Poydras St. Suite 2150, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (New Orleans), LA 70130
    504.455.1400 · lewis.kahn@kglg.com
  2. Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (NY)
    12 East 41st Street, 12th Floor, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (NY), NY 10016
    212.920.4310 212.696.3730 · info@kglg.com
  3. Saxena White PA (Boca Raton)
    2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 307, Saxena White PA (Boca Raton), FL 33431
    800.361.5096 888.782.3081 · info@saxenawhite.com
No Document Title Filing Date