According to a press release dated January 06, 2011, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the Company was experiencing known but undisclosed difficulties in fulfilling orders in the emerging markets in general and in India in particular due to security and regulatory issues; (ii) that the Company’s customers in the emerging markets were experiencing known but undisclosed credit issues causing them to delay purchases; (iii) that the Company was experiencing a sharp decline in new orders that was reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s backlog and operating results; and (iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ representations concerning their “visibility” into the Company’s earnings were materially false and misleading.
On August 5, 2010, Tekelec issued a press release announcing its operating results for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. In response to the announcement, the price of Tekelec common stock fell more than 9% on heavy trading volume as the remaining artificial inflation came out of the stock price.
On April 28, 2011, the Court appointed Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan and Norfolk County Retirement System lead plaintiffs. Further, the Court approved of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP as Co-Lead Counsel and McDaniel & Anderson, LLP as Liaison Counsel.
The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 30, 2011, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and the rules promulgated thereunder, specifically Rule 10b-5.
On March 26, 2012, the Court issued an order dismissing without prejudice plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs may address the errors identified by the court, make any other changes plaintiffs deem appropriate, and file a second amended complaint.
On April 30, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On May 4, 2012, plaintiffs filed a corrected second amended complaint.
On March 22, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.