Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/13/2013 (Other)

Filing Date: August 15, 2011

According to a press release dated August 16, 2011, the complaint charges the Compnay and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and financial results. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants assured investors that the Company was well positioned to deliver against its long-term model of 20% or higher revenue growth and 25% or higher operating margin, while failing to disclose negative trends in the Company’s business. As a result, stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $44.46 per share on March 8, 2011.

Then, after the market closed on July 26, 2011, the Company issued a press release reporting disappointing second quarter 2011 financial results. In addition, the Company provided disappointing guidance for the third quarter of 2011 and lowered its revenue guidance for the full year to growth of between 12% to 14%, which was far below the Company’s long-term model of 20% revenue growth. On this news, stock values fell $6.51 per share to close at $24.66 per share on July 27, 2011, a one-day decline of nearly 21% on volume of 61.6 million shares.

According to the complaint, the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) due to technical issues with certain of its products and turnover in its sales force, the Company was losing market share in its security business to its competitors; (b) in order to maintain market share and meet its previously announced growth rate targets in the face of the intense pricing pressure being exerted by the Company’s competitors in both the switching and routing markets, the Company was forced to dramatically lower prices, which was having a material adverse effect on the Company’s margins; (c) the Company’s new product launches would not meaningfully contribute to the Company’s operations until 2012; and (d) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Juniper’s growth rates, market share, orders, new product introductions, gross and operating margins, and the Company’s ability to deliver upon its long-term growth model.

On January 9, 2012, the Court issued an order appointing the Lead Plaintiff and approving of Lead Counsel.

On February 13, 2012, the Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. On March 14, 2012, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On July 23, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' motions without prejudice. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend. On August 20, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint.

On May 17, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the motion to dismiss the SAC with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court was directed to close this file.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: JNPR
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-04003
JUDGE: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
DATE FILED: 08/15/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/20/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/26/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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 ·
  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
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 11-CV-04003
JUDGE: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
DATE FILED: 02/13/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/20/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/26/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Scott & Scott LLP (San Diego)
    600 B Street, Suite 1500, Scott & Scott LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.233.4565 619.233.4565 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date