Lawsuit Overview
July 19, 2019 - An amended complaint was filed.
November 8, 2018 - An investor in shares of Ribbon Communications Inc. (NASDAQ: RBBN), filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Ribbon Communications Inc. (NASDAQ: RBBN), formerly Sonus Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:SONS) in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between January 8, 2015 and March 24, 2015.
Sonus Networks, Inc. reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $254.13 million in 2012 to $296.33 million in 2014 and that its respective Net Loss declined from $50.17 million to $16.86 million. Shares of Sonus Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:SONS) declined to as low as $8.26 per share on March 25, 2015.
On March 24, 2015, Sonus Networks, Inc. announced that it is updating its previous guidance and initiated a company-wide cost reduction review. Sonus Networks, Inc. lowered its previously issued guidance. Sonus Networks, Inc. said that it expects revenue to be in the range of $47 million to $50 million and non-GAAP loss per share in the range of $0.29 to $0.34 for the first quarter ending March 27, 2015 as compared to previous guidance of $74 million in revenue and non-GAAP diluted earnings of $0.03 per share. Sonus Networks, Inc. said that it also expects its revenue for the full year will be up to 25% below the midpoint of its previous annual guidance of $326 million to $330 million.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Ribbon Communications Inc. (NASDAQ: RBBN) common shares between January 8, 2015 and March 24, 2015, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between January 8, 2015 and March 24, 2015, the Defendants knew that the Company would fall materially short of its $74 million revenue forecast. Defendants knew that the unrealistic revenue and profitability forecasts remained aspirational and largely unreachable, a fact that senior sales personnel regularly communicated to Defendants. Defendants also knew that a number of 2015 sales had been “pulled forward” to buoy sales numbers in Q4 2014, at management’s express direction, and that the “backlog” of sales expected to be recognized in early 2015 was significantly lower than usual. And, upon disclosure of the Company’s poor results, the Company’s share price fell significantly in value-thereby injuring investors.