Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/31/2014 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: October 28, 2011

According to a complaint filed on November 2, 2011, the Defendants released allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company’s business prospects, thereby violating federal securities laws.

In particular, defendants caused the Company to issue false and misleading statements in its public filings, press releases, and conference calls that touted the Company's positive financial results, significant growth, and presented aggressive forward guidance. Specifically, defendants trumpeted the Company's "transformation" of its business operations and implementation of new strategic initiatives that would improve its financial performance. When questioned about the impact of the Company's wholesale transition on its financial results, defendants steadfastly rebuffed notions that the transition would adversely affect its financial performance going forward or its ability to achieve its business outlook. Further, the complaint alleges the defendants continued to maintain that the Company had an effective system of internal and disclosure controls in place concerning its financial reporting.

3. The complaint further states that the Company was facing significant charges arising from legacy contracts entered into in or before 2009, and substantial weakness in sales in its North American sector. Moreover, plaintiffs claim that defendants knew that the Company "lack[ed] operational discipline, process and controls" and that such "operational issues" would result in charges arising from certain fixed-price projects that possessed cost assumption for contingencies that rendered such contracts unprofitable and at a high-risk of loss. The Company’s Chief Executive Officer acknowledged that despite his earlier aggressive statements, the "shortfall in North American sales and revenue production … [was] not completely unforeseen."

As a result of defendants' materially false and misleading statements, states the complaint, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $6.86 per share on April 6, 2011.

On August 3, 2011, the Company issued a press release and held an earnings conference call reporting financial results that were "significantly below … expectations," and announcing that it would suspend its full-year 2011 guidance due to "sales weakness in North America, [and] changes in estimates on five [fixed-price] projects that were signed in 2009 or earlier, and required adjustments to the balance sheet." The underperforming five fixed-price contracts resulted in $13.4 million in charges against the Company's quarterly revenue and earnings. Further, the Company disclosed a disappointing 23% decline in revenue for its North American operations.
When the Company revealed the truth about its business health, the Company’s stock price fell to $1.22 or approximately 23.6% in a single day, closing at just $3.94 per share on August 3, 2011 on extraordinarily high-volume trading.

According to the Minute Entry filed on January 31, 2012, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and approved the selection of lead counsel.

On April 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.

On June 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.

On November 26, 2013, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. On December 16th, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement.

In light of the Settlement, the Court issued an Order denying defendants' motion to dismiss on February 6, 2014.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CBR
Company Market: New York SE
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. Colorado
DOCKET #: 11-CV-02827
JUDGE: Hon.John L. Kane
DATE FILED: 10/28/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/15/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/03/2011
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. Powers Taylor LLP

    ·
  3. Robbins Umeda LLP (Former San Diego Address)
    610 West Ash Street, Suite 1800, Robbins Umeda LLP (Former San Diego Address), CA 92101
    619.525.3990 619.525.3990 · info@robbinsumeda.com
  4. The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC
    The Preston Commons, 8117 Preston Road, Suite 300, The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, TX 75255
    214.706.9314 214.706.9315 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Colorado
DOCKET #: 11-CV-02827
JUDGE: Hon.John L. Kane
DATE FILED: 04/09/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/15/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/03/2011
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. 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 ·
  3. Robbins Umeda LLP
    600 B Street, Suite 1900, Robbins Umeda LLP, CA 92101
    (619) 525-3990 619.525.3991 ·
  4. 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