According to a press release dated October 28, 2009, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made numerous positive statements regarding the Company’s financial condition, business and prospects. The complaint further alleges that these statements were inaccurate statements of material fact when made because defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the Company was experiencing a slowdown in sales of equipment and software and supplies to the financial services sector; (ii) that revenues in the Company’s U.S. mailing segment had dramatically declined and were not performing according to internal expectations; (iii) that the Company’s international operations were not performing to internal expectations as market liberalization and deregulation was causing customers to delay purchasing decisions. For example, in France, a change in the method of meter rentals was causing delayed purchasing decisions and increased selling and marketing costs; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing and other adverse undisclosed factors, there was no reasonable basis for defendants’ positive statements about the Company, its operations and earnings.
On October 29, 2007, Pitney Bowes held a conference call with analysts and investors to discuss the Company’s earnings and operations. During the conference call, defendants admitted that a host of factors caused Pitney Bowes to drastically miss the earnings they had promised. In response to the Company’s announcement, the price of Pitney Bowes common stock declined from $42.68 per share to $36.27 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.
On July 14, 2010, the Court appointed the Labourers’ Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada as Lead Plaintiff and the law firm of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP was appointed Lead Counsel.
On September 20, 2010, an Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws was filed by the lead plaintiffs against the defendants.
On February 9, 2012, the Court issued an Order denying Motion to Dismiss and granting plaintiffs leave to submit an amended complaint.
On February 17, 2012, a (second) Amended Complaint was filed by the plaintiffs.
On March 23, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum of Decision granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk was ordered to close this case and enter judgment in favor of Defendants.