Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/22/2010 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: July 14, 2009

According to a press release dated July 14, 2009, the complaint charges Comtech and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company engages in the design, development, production, and marketing of products, systems, and services for advanced communications solutions in the United States and internationally.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was experiencing negative trends in its commercial satellite earth station and encoder bookings, as well as commercial RF Amplifier bookings; (ii) that the Company’s sales from its Mobile Data Communications division were weakening outside of its one order with the U.S. Army’s Movement Tracking System (“MTS”); (iii) that the Company was experiencing difficulty integrating the Radyne acquisition and was not generating the synergies expected from the acquisition; (iv) that the Company’s costs were rising in excess of internal forecasts reducing profit margins; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its prospects, and its revenue and earnings projections.

Then, on March 9, 2009, Comtech issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fiscal second quarter of 2009, the period ended January 31, 2009. In response to the Company’s drastic reduction in its revenue and earnings guidance for 2009, the price of Comtech common stock fell $12.97 per share, or approximately 37%, to close at $22.48 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Comtech common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

On September 29, 2010, this action was consolidated shall and will be referred to as "In re Comtech Securities Litigation" and shall proceed under docket number 09-cv-3007. The Court also appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel in this Order Adopting Report and Recommendations.

According to a press release dated November 23, 2010, Comtech Telecommunications Corp. announced that plaintiffs Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System and James Lawing, by and through Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as their counsel, have filed a motion with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice, their July 2009 securities fraud lawsuit filed against Comtech, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. The plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss the case after conducting their own investigation and apparently concluding that there was no merit to maintaining the class action lawsuit.

On November 22, 2010, the Plaintiffs moved for an Order approving a voluntary dismissal of this proposed class action with prejudice as to Plaintiffs, with each of the parties bearing their own costs and expenses, and without notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CMTL
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: E.D. New York
DOCKET #: 09-CV-3007
JUDGE: Hon. Sandra J. Feuerstein
DATE FILED: 07/14/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/17/2008
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/09/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@csgrr.com/
  2. Sugarman & Susskind
    100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300, Sugarman & Susskind, FL 33134
    305/529-2801 305/447-8115 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date