Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 09/25/2017 (Settlement preliminarily approval)

Filing Date: February 02, 2015

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Telestone earned almost all of its revenues from sales to the three largest Chinese telecommunications providers – China Unicom, China Mobile, and China Telecom – the so-called Big 3. In fact, Telestone only collected a small fraction of its purported sales to the Big 3, and internally determined both that the Big 3 were routinely breaching their contractual obligations to Telestone and that there was little Telestone could do about it. Revenues from sales to the Big 3 were thus not reasonably certain to be collectable, and should not have been recognized. The lawsuit alleges that the market gradually learned that there may have been an issue with Telestone’s revenues when its accounts receivable ballooned, leading to stock drops from $2.48 to $2.01, or 19.0%, on May 15, 2012, $1.62 to $1.38, or 14.8%, on November 19, 2012, and from $0.84 to $0.30, or 64.2%, following resumption of trading after a trading halt on June 3, 2013.

On January 19, 2016, all claims against issuer Defendant and certain individual defendants were dismissed due to an inability to serve them.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TSTC
Company Market: Pink Sheets
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. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 15-CV-00703
JUDGE: Hon. Jose L. Linares
DATE FILED: 02/02/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/31/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/16/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm (New Jersey)
    236 Tillou Road, The Rosen Law Firm (New Jersey), NJ 07079
    (973) 313-1887 (973) 833-0399 · lrosen@rosenlegal.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 15-CV-00703
JUDGE: Hon. Jose L. Linares
DATE FILED: 08/17/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/31/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/16/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C.
    5 Becker Farm Road , Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., NJ 07068
    (973) 994-1700 (973) 994-1744 ·
  2. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
No Document Title Filing Date