Tags |
|
|
Links |
|
|
Case Upon - Verisign Fraud - Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
Are you a Downey homeowner or a business owner who has recently learned that you have a mold problem? Whether you notice your home’s or business’s mold on your own or with the assistance of a mold inspector, you will want to get your mold problem taken care of. The only problem is that many Downey homeowners and business owners are concerned with the costs; however, the cost of Downey mold abatement should actually be the farthest thing from your mind.The farthest thing from your mind? Is that what you are wondering? If so, you are definitely not alone. Although you will need to make sure that you can afford the cost of Downey mold abatement, it shouldn’t be the only factor that you closely examine, when choosing a professional to remove the mold in your home or business for you. Just a few of the many reasons why you need to examine more than costs are outlined below.What many homeowners and business owners do not realize is that not all Downey mold removers or mold abatement specialists are the same. Yes, many often undergo the same training, but that doesn’t always mean that they put their training to good use. There are many mold removers who take different approaches when doing a Downey mold abatement job. For that reason, you will want to take the time to research each mold remover you are interested in hiring. You can ask those that you know for recommendations or use the internet. When it comes to Downey mold abatement, you will want to choose a specialist that has a proven track record and a good one at that.One of the many reasons why it is advised that all homeowners get their mold problem, if they have one, taken care of is because of the dangers. There are some types of mold, like black mold, that can be d
5. Defendants overstated earnings by failing to properly account for long-term investments in non-public companies and by failing to record impairment charges on many investments.
Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that VeriSign recognized $27 million in barter transactions, $10.5 million in reciprocal transactions, $64 million by roundtrip transactions and $12 million by improper accounting practices. Plaintiffs further allege that VeriSign failed to follow GAAP in terms of recording a $74 million impairment charge.
Defendants argue that companies regularly disclose their true financial condition and their stock price declines when they fail to meet the market expectations. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege that April 25, 2002 disclosure was responsible for the decline in stock price or revelation of any fraud by the company. The disclosure that causes the stock price to decli
I remember being interviewed by a writer for an article about effective meetings that was to appear in a national magazine. The writer began the interview by saying, “I don’t want any of the old standard tips; I want new tips.”I replied, “Well, people wouldn’t need new tips if they used the old tips.” This isn’t what the writer wanted to hear, nor is this what many of us want to hear, but this is the truth. If we used what we already know, we could avoid a lot of problems -- including unproductive meetings.Have you ever sat through a meeting only to realize that the real issues were being discussed outside the meeting? Have you ever attended a meeting and asked yourself what the point was?Many organizations experience what I like to call the “soap opera effect” -- you go to one meeting, then miss a few meetings, and then when you go to the next meeting, it is as if you never missed any meetings at all! Just like the afternoon soaps, you only have to check in once in a while to get caught up.If everyone was more upfront and honest, meetings could be a wonderful vehicle to accomplish our objectives and goals. It’s staggering to think of the time, productivity, and money lost due to unproductive meetings. It doesn’t have to be that way.Here are twelve simple, honest tips for running results-producing meetings in a fraction of the time your unproductive meetings take. If these tips seem like common sense, then ask yourself if people are actually using them. The more tips you use, the more effective your meetings will be.1. Only include the people who need to attend.If you are worried about insulting someone who is not included, ask them if they really want to be included. Most likely, people wi
United States district court, northern district of California was the start of Verisign’s (“the Company”) class action complaint for a violation of securities laws. Plaintiff, James H. Harrison Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated filed vs. Verisign, Inc., Stratton D. Sclavos, Robert J. Korzeniewski, Dana L. Evan and Quintin P. Gallivan. The “class” period is for people who purchased shares of the company between January 25 and April 25 2002.
The defendant Verisign is headquartered in Mountain View California and offers users the ability to engage in secure digital commerce and communications. Verisign’s stock is traded on the NASDQ national market.
Allegations
The allegation is that the defendants tried to artificially increase the Company’s revenue and create the perception that its deferred revenue was being generated organically rather than through acquisition. It is claimed that the Company derived a portion of its revenue from non-monetary barter transactions and investments in other companies. The later claim stated simply, they were financing the payments they were receiving for their goods and services.
The complaint states that the revenues were dubious at best and claimed that “whenever a two-way set of transactions occurs in which a company acts as the lender and service provider, an investor lacks assurance as to whether the related parties would have made a similar decision regarding purchases in the absence of financing from the company”. They claimed that because of this it was not possible to get an accurate measure of the real demand for Verisign’s products.
The complaint also alleges that the defendants misrepresented the company’s prospects and failed to properly disclose improper acts until they were able to sell at least $26 million of their own stock, and also to buy companies in stock-for-stock transactions. Verisign violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Securities Exchange rules by engaging in improper barter transactions. These activities dramatically overstated the company’s margins in its financial statements.
The final complaint states that in addition to the above activities, the defendants had other material information that they concealed from the plaintiffs. The defendants concealed an acquisition because they wanted the public to get the impression that the company’s revenue growth was organic when in fact it was not. Statements were made concerning the company’s ability to grow its operating margins that were “simply impossible”. The integration of two acquisitions was a disaster and clients began to decline rather than grow as the defendants had stated. Other information that was withheld by the defendants included; quickly losing market share to the competitors because of outrageous prices, the company’s web certificate business would post zero growth for the year, the ESP division would post zero organic growth and the fact that 100% of the growth was from acquisitions, the domain name business was losing customers at the rate of 11,000 per day, contrary to statements made by the defendants recent acquisitions would cost $80 million more than expected, receivables were dubious and allowance for doubtful accounts had increased five times over the prior period and lastly the company manipulated its Days Sales Outstanding to paint a rosier picture.
Issues
Plaintiffs argue five key categories of misrepresentations:
1. Defendants inflated accounts receivable, revenue and deferred revenue by improperly accounting for two-year auto-renewals on domain names, and acquired deferred revenue.
2. Defendants used improper accounting to recognize revenue on roundtrip and barter transactions.
3. Defendants failed to adequately reserve for uncollectible delinquent receivables thereby overstating earnings.
4. Defendants misreported domain name registrations by concealing the number of free and promotional registrations and two-year auto-renewal registrations.
5. Defendants overstated earnings by failing to properly account for long-term investments in non-public companies and by failing to record impairment charges on many investments.
Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that VeriSign recognized $27 million in barter transactions, $10.5 million in reciprocal transactions, $64 million by roundtrip transactions and $12 million by improper accounting practices. Plaintiffs further allege that VeriSign failed to follow GAAP in terms of recording a $74 million impairment charge.
Defendants argue that companies regularly disclose their true financial condition and their stock price declines when they fail to meet the market expectations. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege that April 25, 2002 disclosure was responsible for the decline in stock price or revelation of any fraud by the company. The disclosure that causes the stock price to declin
A contractor knows that creating an estimate is the first step in securing a job. The client will look at all of the estimates and choose the one that best suites his or her needs. Estimating a small home is pretty basic. An experienced estimator can look at the square footage of the home to be built and have a good idea of what it will cost to complete the project. He or she also knows that there is a chance of delays and ever changing prices of materials.The Power Of Estimating - Cuts Costs In The Long RunWhether it is because they are out of stock or there is an outstanding invoice, material suppliers are notorious for delaying the delivery of materials for a job. This is not only poor business practice, it can lead to laborers who get an hourly rate just sitting around the jobsite doing nothing, and getting paid for it. This is the number one reason that construction jobs run over budget.Most contractors are very good at estimating construction costs. There payments are made in increments that have been prearranged. This method of payment keeps the job up and running to insure that it is completed on time. However there is a pattern of business that must be followed to insure that the job runs smoothly without costly delays.The contractor must decide which types of materials that he or she will need for the construction job. Flooring, windows, doors, roofing and plumbing are all necessary components to complete any construction job. The contractor may opt to use less expensive materials; this will bring the cost of the job down, however it may show in the end results.The contractor must also decide who will work on the project. If he or she uses sub contractor, they will have to submit estimates on their s
The complaint states that the revenues were dubious at best and claimed that “whenever a two-way set of transactions occurs in which a company acts as the lender and service provider, an investor lacks assurance as to whether the related parties would have made a similar decision regarding purchases in the absence of financing from the company”. They claimed that because of this it was not possible to get an accurate measure of the real demand for Verisign’s products.
The complaint also alleges that the defendants misrepresented the company’s prospects and failed to properly disclose improper acts until they were able to sell at least $26 million of their own stock, and also to buy companies in stock-for-stock transactions. Verisign violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Securities Exchange rules by engaging in improper barter transactions. These activities dramatically overstated the company’s margins in its financial statements.
The final complaint states that in addition to the above activities, the defendants had other material information that they concealed from the plaintiffs. The defendants concealed an acquisition because they wanted the public to get the impression that the company’s revenue growth was organic when in fact it was not. Statements were made concerning the company’s ability to grow its operating margins that were “simply impossible”. The integration of two acquisitions was a disaster and clients began to decline rather than grow as the defendants had stated. Other information that was withheld by the defendants included; quickly losing market share to the competitors because of outrageous prices, the company’s web certificate business would post zero growth for the year, the ESP division would post zero organic growth and the fact that 100% of the growth was from acquisitions, the domain name business was losing customers at the rate of 11,000 per day, contrary to statements made by the defendants recent acquisitions would cost $80 million more than expected, receivables were dubious and allowance for doubtful accounts had increased five times over the prior period and lastly the company manipulated its Days Sales Outstanding to paint a rosier picture.
Issues
Plaintiffs argue five key categories of misrepresentations:
1. Defendants inflated accounts receivable, revenue and deferred revenue by improperly accounting for two-year auto-renewals on domain names, and acquired deferred revenue.
2. Defendants used improper accounting to recognize revenue on roundtrip and barter transactions.
3. Defendants failed to adequately reserve for uncollectible delinquent receivables thereby overstating earnings.
4. Defendants misreported domain name registrations by concealing the number of free and promotional registrations and two-year auto-renewal registrations.
5. Defendants overstated earnings by failing to properly account for long-term investments in non-public companies and by failing to record impairment charges on many investments.
Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that VeriSign recognized $27 million in barter transactions, $10.5 million in reciprocal transactions, $64 million by roundtrip transactions and $12 million by improper accounting practices. Plaintiffs further allege that VeriSign failed to follow GAAP in terms of recording a $74 million impairment charge.
Defendants argue that companies regularly disclose their true financial condition and their stock price declines when they fail to meet the market expectations. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege that April 25, 2002 disclosure was responsible for the decline in stock price or revelation of any fraud by the company. The disclosure that causes the stock price to decli
In Part 1 of this article we looked at how your employees could be brought to a level of good understanding of the hazards and how to overcome them. Part 2 looks at other aspects of your role as an employer in meeting the necessary requirements connected with your ‘duty of care'.Are you supervising your employees enough? This is not simply a matter of showing your face every so often, but ensuring that you meet with them regularly to discuss any issues that may be occurring concerning their work. Often, when Cleaning Companies staff out jobs, it is the cleaners themselves who know more about what is going on in the contracts than the managers themselves. Employees should be encouraged to come to you with any problems they may be having with any of the techniques, equipment, language, or the client. It may be that after discussions with your cleaning staff you decide to review these aspects of the contract, or it may be that everything is running smoothly and no action is required. Either way, the opinions of your employees matter, and these meeting times can provide a simple and effective way of dealing with problems before they begin.It is your responsibility as an employer to provide all of your staff with the correct Personal Protective Equipment. Cleaning staff are not responsible for providing their own PPE. It is essential that you make you employees aware of the reasons that they need PPE, the correct use of such items and procedures for replacing and/or repairing items. Communication should be encouraged, and you should always respond promptly to any issues that your employees raise concerning PPE. Items of PPE must be suitable for the task and must be a correct fit for the individual. It is your responsibility to
The final complaint states that in addition to the above activities, the defendants had other material information that they concealed from the plaintiffs. The defendants concealed an acquisition because they wanted the public to get the impression that the company’s revenue growth was organic when in fact it was not. Statements were made concerning the company’s ability to grow its operating margins that were “simply impossible”. The integration of two acquisitions was a disaster and clients began to decline rather than grow as the defendants had stated. Other information that was withheld by the defendants included; quickly losing market share to the competitors because of outrageous prices, the company’s web certificate business would post zero growth for the year, the ESP division would post zero organic growth and the fact that 100% of the growth was from acquisitions, the domain name business was losing customers at the rate of 11,000 per day, contrary to statements made by the defendants recent acquisitions would cost $80 million more than expected, receivables were dubious and allowance for doubtful accounts had increased five times over the prior period and lastly the company manipulated its Days Sales Outstanding to paint a rosier picture.
Issues
Plaintiffs argue five key categories of misrepresentations:
1. Defendants inflated accounts receivable, revenue and deferred revenue by improperly accounting for two-year auto-renewals on domain names, and acquired deferred revenue.
2. Defendants used improper accounting to recognize revenue on roundtrip and barter transactions.
3. Defendants failed to adequately reserve for uncollectible delinquent receivables thereby overstating earnings.
4. Defendants misreported domain name registrations by concealing the number of free and promotional registrations and two-year auto-renewal registrations.
5. Defendants overstated earnings by failing to properly account for long-term investments in non-public companies and by failing to record impairment charges on many investments.
Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that VeriSign recognized $27 million in barter transactions, $10.5 million in reciprocal transactions, $64 million by roundtrip transactions and $12 million by improper accounting practices. Plaintiffs further allege that VeriSign failed to follow GAAP in terms of recording a $74 million impairment charge.
Defendants argue that companies regularly disclose their true financial condition and their stock price declines when they fail to meet the market expectations. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege that April 25, 2002 disclosure was responsible for the decline in stock price or revelation of any fraud by the company. The disclosure that causes the stock price to decli
"The first step toward success is taken when you refuse to be a captive of the environment in which you first find yourself." - Mark CaineHere’s a Quick FixWhen four successful people all tell me to watch the same DVD, I take action. Rika and I zoomed down to Rogers Video and grabbed “What the Bleep Do We Know”, which we watched on New Years Day. What a great start to the 2006! (Or a great start to the rest of one’s life, for that matter.) We all know that Napoleon Hill told us, “Whatever the mind of man can believe and conceive, it can achieve” – we all know about the power of positive thinking. But watching this amazing, scientific video was a powerful reminder and motivator that we will determine what 2006 holds for us.This movie is certainly a “Quick Fix” and a “Checkup from the neck up” – it inspired me to take even greater control of my thoughts, affirmations and focus. It shows that what happens within us determines what happens outside of us, with clear, scientific proof. It reminds us that we can rewire our neuro net, change the story we tell ourselves about what the outside world is and start manifesting and co-creating the reality we so dearly desire. Control your mind and you will control your life.I recently asked my Mother what her motto for life was. After she told me, she asked me what mine was. I answered with one word: “Responsibility”. We create our own destinies and we are responsible for our futures. We are not responsible for the choices of others, and we are not victims. We are in control, whether we want to believe that or not. Our thoughts, beliefs and expectations will repeat our present circumstances, or drag us further down, or recreate our lives and allow us to make all our dreams come true
Issues
Plaintiffs argue five key categories of misrepresentations:
1. Defendants inflated accounts receivable, revenue and deferred revenue by improperly accounting for two-year auto-renewals on domain names, and acquired deferred revenue.
2. Defendants used improper accounting to recognize revenue on roundtrip and barter transactions.
3. Defendants failed to adequately reserve for uncollectible delinquent receivables thereby overstating earnings.
4. Defendants misreported domain name registrations by concealing the number of free and promotional registrations and two-year auto-renewal registrations.
5. Defendants overstated earnings by failing to properly account for long-term investments in non-public companies and by failing to record impairment charges on many investments.
Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that VeriSign recognized $27 million in barter transactions, $10.5 million in reciprocal transactions, $64 million by roundtrip transactions and $12 million by improper accounting practices. Plaintiffs further allege that VeriSign failed to follow GAAP in terms of recording a $74 million impairment charge.
Defendants argue that companies regularly disclose their true financial condition and their stock price declines when they fail to meet the market expectations. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege that April 25, 2002 disclosure was responsible for the decline in stock price or revelation of any fraud by the company. The disclosure that causes the stock price to decli
How do I know that this can happen?Simple: It has happened to me! Let me show you the play-by-play…Summary of trade:* Name of Company: Cemex (ticker:CX).* Opening Trade: Bought 20 contracts of CX on January 31, 2005 at $2.40 a contract (March 2005 expiration, Strike: 35).* Closing Trade: Sold 20 contracts of CX, two days later, on February 2, 2005 at $4.00 a contract for a profit of $1.6 a contract, or 40%.* Between the time I bought and sold my options, the stock moved $1.32.This was my first time my options “popped” in such a short period of time. A “freak of nature” type of incident? I don’t think so! So why did this happen? Now I do admit, however, while I would love to have all my trades profit this quickly, there is always a little luck when it comes to how quickly things move. But what was not due to luck were the reasons that I entered into this trade in the first place.Three factors led me to believe that this setup looked ripe for the plucking.First: The trend is always your friend.This is a simple, yet, often overlooked statement. Higher highs, and higher lows indicate an up-trending graph (I’ve circled the higher lows in the graph). The reason why this rule is overlooked is because people try to speculate - a stock can be beaten down for so long that traders will start speculating when the stock will start to recover and start moving upwards. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t work this way. The gamble is this: if you are right, you catch the initial “pop” of momentum as there is usually a jump in price as the stock changes trend. Catch the beginning of a trend move, and you can make big bucks, real fast.I don’t speculate. I trade on evidence
5. Defendants overstated earnings by failing to properly account for long-term investments in non-public companies and by failing to record impairment charges on many investments.
Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that VeriSign recognized $27 million in barter transactions, $10.5 million in reciprocal transactions, $64 million by roundtrip transactions and $12 million by improper accounting practices. Plaintiffs further allege that VeriSign failed to follow GAAP in terms of recording a $74 million impairment charge.
Defendants argue that companies regularly disclose their true financial condition and their stock price declines when they fail to meet the market expectations. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege that April 25, 2002 disclosure was responsible for the decline in stock price or revelation of any fraud by the company. The disclosure that causes the stock price to decline must be the subject matter of the misstatements or omissions that are the basis for plaintiffs’ securities fraud claims.
The Defendants site Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 125 S. Ct. 1627, 1634 (2005) as an example. The Court held, however, that the complaint failed to claim “that Dura’s share price fell significantly after the truth became known,” and thus failed to provide defendants with notice of the causal connection between any economic loss and the alleged misrepresentation.
In another example of Tellium Inc, where the company suddenly reveled in January 2002 that it needed new customers to achieve its $288 million revenue guidance even after repeated assurances about its sales commitments, the Defendants pointed out the following. The court held that these allegations did not plead loss causation because “[p]laintiffs have failed to allege that the concealed scheme was ever disclosed to the market, thereby affecting the price of Tellium’s stock.”
Based on Plaintiffs inability to allege a causal connection between the alleged fraud and their alleged losses, the Defendants appealed that their motion should be granted. The courts found that the Plaintiffs have pled loss causation only with respect to the first category of fraud, namely, improper revenue recognition and misstatements of reciprocal and related party transactions. Hence the Plaintiffs continued to plead through future amendments trying to establish loss causation. On the contrary, the Defendants argued motion to dismiss on the pretext that the Plaintiffs were unable to establish loss causation by repeatedly stating that even though the market was unaware of the fraudulent scheme, April 25, 2002 disclosure was responsible for the price decline.
Court’s Findings Rule 10b-5 Claims
The court applies this rule that investors have a right to action if the company uses materially false or misleading statements that leads to harm of those who buy or sell that particular security. The claim must state a material representation, scienter, a purchase or sale of the security related to that representation, reliance on the information, and a loss caused by that reliance. In this case the “defendants do not challenge that the misstatements or omissions were made in connection with the purchase, reliance on those misstatements or omissions or that they suffered an economic loss.” Along with the 10b-5 requirements, securities fraud allegations must adhere to Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (In re Advanta, 180 F.3d at 531) of “(1) a specific false representation of material fact, (2) knowledge by person who made it that it was false, (3) ignorance of its falsity, (4) intention that it should be acted on, and (5) that plaintiffs action upon it to his damage.” Therefore, the court must decide on materiality, misrepresentations or omissions, scienter, and the loss causation.
Materiality
Both the parties rely on Oran v. Stafford, 226 F.3d at 282 that for a fact to be material the disclosure of bad news must cause a decline in stock price. The court ruled that although there was not an immediate decline in stock price since from the partial disclosures that he negative information could have been displaced by what the market appeared as good news. Defendants held that Ieradi v. Mylan Lab 230 F.3d 594 ruling of the initial disclosure would be sufficient and following admissions would be insignificant in the total mix of information available. The court disagrees because in this case the market hardly reacted to the news of MedQuist possible delisting and the stock price actually increased until they were actually de-listed. The threat of the delisting was unimportant to the market and although the risk was disclosed it was not materialized until it significantly altered the mix of information. Since also the disclosures were a series of partial information and the actual over billings were substantially larger then disclosed estimates ther
HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.answerupon.com/article/1016/answerupon-Verisign-Fraud--Class-Action-Lawsuit-Settlement.html">Verisign Fraud - Class Action Lawsuit Settlement</a>
BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.answerupon.com/article/1016/answerupon-Verisign-Fraud--Class-Action-Lawsuit-Settlement.html]Verisign Fraud - Class Action Lawsuit Settlement[/url]
Related Articles:
What are Great Employee Rewards?
Part 1 - The Evolution of Business
Bookmark it:
|