Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 05/05/2014 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: July 19, 2011

According to a press release dated July 19, 2011, the plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for certain misrepresentations concerning the defendant’s financial results and business practices.

The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the company was experiencing a decrease in sales of its inverter systems; (b) that the company’s European market was performing below internal expectations due to changes in government incentives for solar energy; (c) that the company failed to properly account for its inventory; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the company and its prospects.

On February 22, 2011, the company announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and year end of 2010. With regard to the company’s outlook for the first quarter of 2011, defendants stated that they expected “revenues to be in the range of $65 to $70 million with our gross margin between 25% to 27%.” In reaction to the announcement, the price of Satcon stock fell $1.29 per share, or 27%, to close at $3.54 per share, on heavy trading volume. On April 7, 2011, the company announced its preliminary financial results for the first quarter of 2011. For the quarter, the company revised its guidance and stated that revenue would be between $61 million and $63 million and gross margins would be within a range of 23% to 25%. In reaction to this announcement, the price of the company’s stock fell $0.23 per share, or 7%, to close at $3.29 per share.

On April 27, 2011, the company announced its financial results for the first quarter of 2011, the period ended March 31, 2011, and its guidance for the second quarter. With regard to the guidance, defendants stated that they expected “revenue to be in the range of $50 to $60 million.” Then on July 5, 2011, the company announced preliminary financial results for the second quarter of 2011. For the quarter, the company expected revenue to be between $45 million and $47 million due to “changes in government incentives in the company’s higher margin markets in Europe as well as delays on a few projects that have been pushed into the third quarter.” Moreover, the company announced that its gross margin estimate would be “between 7% and 11%, below the company’s previously announced guidance of 17% to 20%” due to the “lower revenue range, and the effects of the slowdown in the European market. Lastly, the Company announced that it was reducing its workforce by 15%. In reaction to these announcements, the price of the company stock fell $0.59 per share, or 23%, to close at $1.95 per share, on heavy trading volume.

On April 19, 2012, the Court issued an Order consolidating related actions as In re Satcon Technology Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:11-
cv-1 1270-DPW. The Court also appointed Lead Plaintiff and approved the selection of Lead Counsel.

On June 25, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint.

On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed their second amended and consolidated complaint.

On May 2, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the parties' joint motion to stay these proceedings pending mediation.

On December 20, 2013, the Plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SATC
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: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 11-CV-11270
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 07/19/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/04/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/05/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan & Bottini LLP
    550 West C Street, Suite 2000, Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan & Bottini LLP, CA 92101
    619-241-4810 ·
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  3. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    53 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 11-CV-11270
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 06/25/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/05/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/10/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    53 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date