According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements because: (a) NetSol's next generation product was not expected to be completed when promised by the Company; (b) serious interest in NetSol's next generation solution had not been expressed by a few global companies; (c) NetSol was not experiencing a growing interest in its next generation NFS product, and the product was not ready for testing at customer sites; (d) NetSol did not expect future growth through increased revenues from both the current version and the next generation of NFS; (e) there was no reasonable basis for stating that development of the next generation of NFS would change the landscape for NetSol and increase both demand and the market; (f) NetSol did not have a reasonable basis for stating that its target customers who were still using old systems for maintaining their lease and finance portfolios were planning to replace their legacy systems or that NetSol was in a good position to tap new business from these companies; and (g) all internal data pointed to a continued business decline; not "growth and strength across the business" as represented by the Company.
Upon dissemination of the Company's November 8, 2013 disclosures, its stock dropped 30% from a closing price of $7.48 on February 7, 2013 to a closing price $5.23 on February 8, 2013 in an inordinate volume of trading.
On October 29, 2014, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases, and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
On February 25, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved on March 28. The Settlement was granted final approval, and judgment entered, on July 2.