Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 01/05/2015 (Other)

Filing Date: November 19, 2013

According to the law firm press release, QSI develops and sells practice management software to medical and dental providers, including software related to scheduling and billing. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, QSI portrayed itself as a high-growth company, repeatedly touting its record growth in revenue and earnings, and robust pipeline of business that contained hundreds of millions of dollars of software sales that the Company sought to realize within the next six to eight months. QSI also repeatedly issued bullish annual guidance to investors, stating that it was confident that it would achieve annual growth rates in earnings per share (“EPS”) well in excess of 20%.

It is alleged that in truth, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that QSI’s growth was materially slowing. Indeed, throughout the Class Period, Defendants were privy to real-time data concerning the revenues and earnings of each of QSI’s operating divisions, and QSI’s guidance was continuously updated based on that real-time data. Accordingly, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the fiscal 2012 guidance calling for earnings growth of as much as 33% was directly contradicted by the reality of QSI’s performance.

On May 7, 2012, the Company announced that it was experiencing delays in closing sales, which raised investor concerns about the Company’s fiscal 2012 performance. As a result of these concerns, QSI’s stock price declined 17% over the next two trading days, falling from a closing price of $36.99 on May 6 to a closing price of $30.99 on May 8, on very high volume.

A few days later, on May 10, 2012, QSI revealed that, contrary to its prior statements touting its continued record growth, its ability to generate earnings had materially slowed in fiscal 2012. Specifically, QSI announced that it would report EPS of between $1.27 and $1.30 for fiscal 2012 – or as much as 36% below its guidance. Following this announcement, QSI’s stock price immediately declined 6%, falling from $32.09 to $30.12 on May 10, on extremely high volume.

Then, before the market opened on July 26, 2012, Defendants announced that the Company’s EPS had materially declined from the year-ago quarter, and withdrew QSI’s highly favorable fiscal 2013 guidance. That disclosure caused the price of QSI stock to decline from $23.63 per share to $15.95 per share on July 26, 2012.

On February 4, 2014, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiffs and approving the selection of Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on April 7.

On October 20, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of this Order was denied by the court on January 5, 2015.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: QSII
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-01818
JUDGE: Hon. Cormac J. Carney
DATE FILED: 11/19/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/26/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/25/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego)
    12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson
    10059 Northwest 1st Court, Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson, FL 33324
    954.916.1202 954.916.1232 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-01818
JUDGE: Hon. Cormac J. Carney
DATE FILED: 04/07/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/26/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/25/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY)
    1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY), NY 10019
    212.554.1400 212.554.1444 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Cypen & Cypen
    777 Arthur Godfrey Road, Suite 320, Cypen & Cypen, FL 33140
    305/532-3200 305/535-0050 ·
  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