Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/10/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: November 14, 2013

According to the law firm press release, Ixia delivers information technology solutions including real-time monitoring, real-world testing, and rapid assessment of network and system user behavior, security vulnerabilities, capacity, application performance, and IT resiliency. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: the Company improperly recognized revenues related to its warranty and software maintenance contracts; the Company’s Chief Executive Officer misstated his academic credentials and employment history; and the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

On March 24, 2014, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on June 11.

On October 6, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Lead Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on November 5.

On January 13, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on February 29.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: XXIA
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-08440
JUDGE: Hon. Percy Anderson
DATE FILED: 11/14/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/29/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/24/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-08440
JUDGE: Hon. Percy Anderson
DATE FILED: 11/05/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/04/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/03/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Grant & Eisenhofer (New York)
    485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor, Grant & Eisenhofer (New York), NY
    646.722.8500 646.722.8500 · lawyers@gelaw.com
  2. Westerman Law Corp.
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Westerman Law Corp., CA 90067
    (310) 698-7450 (310) 201-9160 ·
No Document Title Filing Date