Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 05/05/2014 (Settlement preliminarily approval)

Filing Date: May 19, 2011

According to a press release dated May 19, 2011, the complaint charges Oclaro and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Oclaro is a leading provider of high-performance core optical network components, modules and subsystems to global telecom equipment manufacturers.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s current business and financial condition, including projections for its first quarter 2011 and fiscal 2011 revenues, earnings and gross margins. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Oclaro stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $17.07 per share on October 17, 2010.

On October 28, 2010, before the market opened, Oclaro reported first quarter 2011 earnings per share of $0.01 as compared to analyst estimates of $0.22. The Company also posted sequential gross margin declines and reported that its anticipated second quarter 2011 revenues, earnings and gross margins, which it had previously indicated would post accelerated gains, would also be down, all as a result of sudden customer inventory corrections and weak demand visibility, among other things. On this news, Oclaro’s stock price fell 37% to close at $8.60 per share on October 28, 2010, from a close of $13.68 per share on October 27, 2010, on high volume.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) demand for Oclaro’s products, which have sales cycles of one year, was flat or declining well before October 28, 2010; (b) the Company did not have a reasonable basis for its forecast of accelerated gross margin growth or that orders for Oclaro products would cover forecasted financial results; and (c) Oclaro’s capacity to meet forecasted revenues, earnings, and margin growth was severely compromised.

On July 20, 2011, the Court issued an order consolidating the following cases under one docket: Guindani v. Couder, et al. 11-cv-03176-PSG June 27, 2011; Coney v. Couder, et al. 11-cv-03214-HRL June 28, 2011; and Braman v. Couillaud, et al. 11-cv-03322-RS July 7, 2011. Further, the court consolidated the derivative action titled Westley v. Oclaro, Inc., 14 Case No. 3:11-CV-02448.

On March 27, 2012, the Court issued an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing this case without prejudice. Plaintiffs were given thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint. On April 26, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

On September 21, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 1, 2013.

On May 30, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. All claims based on the July/August 2010 statements were dismissed with prejudice. The Court also dismissed with prejudice any and all claims against a certain individual defendant.

On February 5, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved the the Court on May 5th.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: OCLR
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-02448
JUDGE: Hon.Edward M. Chen
DATE FILED: 05/19/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/06/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/27/2010
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-02448
JUDGE: Hon.Edward M. Chen
DATE FILED: 10/27/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/06/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/28/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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