According to the law firm press release, SuperCom provides traditional and digital identity solutions to governments and private and public organizations worldwide.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that SuperCom was having difficulty closing certain governmental sales and the revenue associated with those sales would be substantially delayed, that SuperCom’s “pipeline” was neither strong nor “broadening,” and that, as a result, the Company was not on track to achieve the financial results defendants had led the market to expect during the Class Period. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements and/or omissions, SuperCom’s common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $13.84 per share.
Then, on November 30, 2015, Supercom announced its preliminary financial results for the third quarter of 2015, acknowledging that it had significantly missed its own revenue target and disclosing that the Company expected third quarter 2015 revenues to come in at $5.5-$6.1 million, less than half of the $13.38 million the Company had led the investment community to expect, and that it would be forced to lower its fiscal year 2015 guidance. The Company stated that its “‘financial performance in the third quarter and full-year were impacted by [its] inability to recognize more than $10 million of revenues that were expected this year, mainly due to delays associated with foreign government customers.’” On this news, the price of SuperCom common stock fell more than $3 per share, or 40%, from its close of $7.70 per share on November 27, 2015 to a close of $4.60 per share on November 30, 2015.
On August 22, 2016, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 7.