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.