Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/26/2014 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 09, 2011

According to a press release dated September 9, 2011, the Defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with statements released to the public around the Company’s initial public offering.

At the time of the IPO, the Company derived substantially all of its revenues from sales to the WiMAX segment of the 4G market. On or about April 14, 2011, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and 7.7 million shares of the Defendant’s ADSs were sold to the public at $10 per ADS.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants allegedly misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) revenues from the Company’s WiMAX products were declining; (b) the Company was not in position to generate any meaningful revenues from sales of 4G LTE products until late 2012; (c) the Company’s largest customer, and the industry in general, was focusing more on 4G LTE offerings as opposed to WiMAX offerings, including WiMAX products offered by the Company; (d) the Company would not experience sales growth during 2011 and in fact would experience sales declines during that period; (e) the Company was becoming increasingly more dependent upon sales from its largest customer, and sales from that customer had declined and would continue to decline; and (f) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis of fact and were materially false and misleading when made.

On July 28, 2011, before the market opened, the Company announced financial results for the second quarter of 2011, the period ended June 30, 2011, and reported net profit of $0.1 million, or $0.00 per diluted ADS, compared to a net profit of $1.9 million, or $0.07 per ADS, in the first quarter of 2011 and a net profit of $0.6 million, or $0.02 per ADS, in the second quarter of 2010.

At the time of the filing of the complaint, the Company’s ADSs were trading in the range of $5.50-$6.00 per share.

On December 13, 2011, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving the selection of lead counsel. On February 1, 2012, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated and amended complaint.

On January 17, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the motions by the Company Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants to dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs were given 20 days to file a motion for leave to amend and a proposed amended complaint.

On October 31, 2013, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on November 20th.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: France

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SQNS
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 11-CV-06341
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 09/09/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/15/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/27/2011
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 (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 11-CV-06341
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 02/02/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/15/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/27/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brower Piven (New York)
    488 Madison Avenue. Eighth Floor, Brower Piven (New York), NY 10022
    212.501.9000 212.501.0300 · info@browerpiven.com
  2. Dyer & Berens LLP
    303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300, Dyer & Berens LLP, CO 80203
    303.861.1764 303.861.1764 ·
  3. 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 ·
No Document Title Filing Date