Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 07/07/2015 (Other)

Filing Date: January 05, 2012

According to a press release dated January 5, 2011, the complaint charges the defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Camelot is a holding company that conducts business through its operating subsidiaries in China. The Company is a provider of enterprise application services and financial industry information technology services in China.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business practices and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose negative trends in the Company’s business, including with its most important customers. As a result of defendants’ false statements, the Company’s ADSs traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $26.73 per share on January 11, 2011.

On July 21, 2010, the Company announced the pricing of its IPO of 13.3 million ADSs at $11.00 per ADS. Subsequently, on December 9, 2010, it announced the pricing of its Secondary Offering of 7,160,206 ADSs by selling shareholders at $19.50 per ADS. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements issued in connection with the Offerings were inaccurate and misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be stated therein.

On August 15, 2011, a reporting organization published an article questioning several key components of the Company’s business. This caused the ADSs to drop to below $9 per share. Then on August 18, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2011 unaudited financial results, including lower-than-expected guidance for fiscal 2011. On this news, the Company’s ADSs dropped $2.24 per share to close at $6.32 per share on August 18, 2011, a one-day decline of 26%.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company’s IT professionals were not a competitive advantage to the Company and many were dissatisfied with Camelot, which would adversely affect the Company’s ability to retain its customers; (b) the Company was suffering from undisclosed attrition of employees, which was having a negative impact on the Company’s ability to attract new customers; (c) Camelot did not have the large numbers of highly trained professionals at its disposal that it had represented; and (d) the Company’s contract with its most important customer was not as solid as represented, and would not be renewed on the same terms.

On June 6, 2012, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving the selection of lead counsel.

On September 6, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On October 1, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a corrected complaint.

On October 10, 2012, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases.

On March 19, 2014, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on December 12, 2014. The Court granted final approval of the Settlement and ordered this case dismissed on July 1, 2015.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CIS
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 12-CV-00086
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 01/05/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/21/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/17/2011
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 (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 12-CV-00086
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 10/01/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/21/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/28/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard LLP (New York)
    10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.779.1414 212.779.1414 ·
  2. Dyer & Berens LLP
    303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300, Dyer & Berens LLP, CO 80203
    303.861.1764 303.861.1764 ·
  3. Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta)
    200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300, Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta), GA 30338
    770.392.0090 770.392.0090 ·
  4. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP (Pennsylvania)
    280 King of Prussia Road, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP (Pennsylvania), PA 19087
    610.667.7706 610.667.7706 · info@ktmc.com
  5. 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