Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 12/05/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: March 15, 2011

According to a press release dated March 15, 2011, the complaint charges Finisar and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Finisar is a provider of optical subsystems and components that connect short-distance local area networks, storage area networks, longer distance metropolitan area networks, fiber-to-the-home networks, cable television networks and wide area networks.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Finisar’s recent revenue growth was due to an oversupply of inventory in the market and that the Company would be unable to sustain its strong growth due to increased pricing pressures and a slowdown in business from China. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Finisar’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $43.23 per share on February 14, 2011.

Then, on March 8, 2011, after the market closed, Finisar issued a press release announcing its third quarter fiscal year 2011 results. The Company reported earnings of $18.8 million, or $0.22 diluted earnings per share, and revenue of $263.0 million. The Company further reported its fourth quarter 2011 revenues would be in the range of $235 to $250 million, lower than analysts’ estimates. On this news, Finisar’s stock fell $15.43 per share to close at $24.61 per share on March 9, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 39%.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) Finisar’s recent revenue surge was not due solely to organic growth from real end-market demand, but rather it was partially due to an inventory build by the Company’s customers; (b) Finisar was experiencing increasing pricing pressures due to intense competition in the industry and, as a result, it was forced to concede to steep discounts in order to retain certain of its customers; (c) Finisar was experiencing a serious slowdown in business from China, which would have a detrimental effect on the Company’s ability to continue growing at unprecedented rates; and (d) Finisar failed to disclose known trends and uncertainties as required by SEC regulations concerning its revenue growth rate.

On April 29, 2011, the Court released an order reassigning the case to Judge Edward J. Davila.

On May 4, 2011, the Court issued an order granting the unopposed motion to relate docket numbers 11-1278 CW and 11-1635 PJH to the current action.

On October 27, 2011, the Court issued an order appointing the lead plaintiff and approving the the lead counsel. On January 20, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed their consolidated complaint.

On January 16, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint was filed on February 6, 2013.

On September 30, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Clerk was directed to close this case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FNSR
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 #: 11-CV-01252
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 03/15/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/02/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/08/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Dyer & Berens LLP
    303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300, Dyer & Berens LLP, CO 80203
    303.861.1764 303.861.1764 ·
  2. Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta)
    200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300, Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta), GA 30338
    770.392.0090 770.392.0090 ·
  3. 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 ·
  4. 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 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 11-CV-01252
JUDGE: Hon. James Ware
DATE FILED: 01/20/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/01/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/08/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (San Diego)
    12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (San Diego), CA 92130
    858.792.3448 858.792.3448 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date