Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/10/2015 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 14, 2010

According to a press release dated June 14, 2010, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results, repeatedly assuring investors that the Company would be able to increase the amount of its Lab Services business that was under contract, thus making its ability to collect on its receivables more predictable and less costly and time consuming. Defendants further assured investors that the Company was adequately reserving for its bad debts. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Celera stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period, trading as high as $16.23 per share in September 2008.

On July 22, 2009, the Company announced that its “second quarter 2009 revenues relative to the prior year quarter [were] expected to show a reduction for the Company’s Lab Services business.” According to the Company, the Lab Services revenues were “adversely affected by lower than anticipated sample volume due to broad economic pressures, lost business as a result of the Company’s efforts to collect aged receivables, and the denial of reimbursement on a number of legacy . . . tests by certain payors in some regions.” In addition, Celera expected to record “significant charges in the second quarter of 2009 for bad debt expense and impairment of goodwill and intangible assets.” On this news, Celera’s stock tumbled $1.91 per share to close at $5.83 per share on July 23, 2009, a one-day decline of nearly 25% and a 64% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were then known by or available to the defendants during the Class Period, were: (a) Celera was not adequately reserving for its allowance for bad debts in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, causing its financial results to be materially misstated; (b) the Company had failed to maintain effective internal controls concerning its billing and collections processes; and (c) the Company could not substantially increase its Lab Services business that was under contract with third-party insurance payors and thus could not reduce its exposure to uncollectible accounts receivables.

On September 14, 2010, the Court appointed Washtenaw County Employee’s Retirement System as Lead Plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel.

On October 15, 2010, a Consolidated Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.

On May 05, 2011, a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws was filed in the Northern District of California.

On September 4, 2012, the Court issued an Order denying Celera's motion to dismiss.

On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint.

On February 25, 2014, the Court issued an Order Granting Lead Plaintiff’s Motion For Class Certification.

On August 28, 2014, a Stipulation of Settlement was entered into by the lead plaintiffs and the defendants. This Settlement was preliminarily approved on March 31, 2015. The Settlement was granted final approval on November 20, and Judgment was entered in this case on December 10.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CRA
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 #: 10-CV-02604
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 06/14/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/24/2008
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/22/2009
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
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  4. VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C.
    79 Alfred Street, VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C., MI 48201
    313.578.1200 313.578.1200 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 10-CV-02604
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 10/04/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/24/2008
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/22/2009
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
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  3. VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C.
    79 Alfred Street, VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C., MI 48201
    313.578.1200 313.578.1200 ·
No Document Title Filing Date