Allot Communications Ltd. ("Allot" or the Company) is a designer, developer, marketer, and seller of broadband service optimization solutions. The Company's solutions provide broadband service providers and enterprises with real-time visibility into, and control of, network traffic.
The original Complaint charges Allot and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts; omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading; and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, the Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus included representations that the Company would achieve its goal in becoming the leader in its industry through its ability to market and sell its products to end-customers through its channel partners. In fact, according to the Complaint, the Registration Statement and Prospectus failed to disclose that Allot was experiencing declining sales in its indirect distribution channels, such as enterprise, education and smaller ISP customers, in North America.
On April 2, 2007, Allot issued a press release announcing that revenues and earnings for the first quarter of 2007 and the 2007 fiscal year would be lower than its previous guidance - given less than two months previously. The Company attributed the lower guidance to "weakness in sales from some of the Company's distributors, principally in the Americas, which are focused on sales to enterprise, education, and smaller ISPs." In response to the announcement about the Company's revised guidance, on April 2, 2007, the price of Allot stock declined precipitously, falling from $9.15 per share to $7.11 per share - approximately 40% below the IPO price - on heavy trading volume.
According to the Company’s Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, a number of substantially similar Complaints were filed in the same court after the original action was filed. … Motions for consolidation and for appointment of lead Plaintiff were filed on July 2, 2007 and were decided on March 27, 2008, with an order granting consolidation and appointing co-lead Plaintiffs. The Consolidated Amended Compliant was served on June 9, 2008. On August 8, 2008, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The motion was then pending before the Court.
On March 31, 2010, Judge Richard J. Holwell signed the Order denying the motion to dismiss. According to the Order, in light of the parties' representation to the Court that this matter is settling, Defendants' motion to dismiss 37 is denied without prejudice to renew in the event that a final settlement does not materialize.
On August 5, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The proposed settlement is $1.3 million in cash to be paid by the Company. The settlement was preliminarily approved on December 13, 2010. The settlement fairness hearing was set for April 29, 2011. At the hearing, the settlement was approved, the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses was approved, and the action was dismissed with prejudice.
