News Focus
News Focus
icon url

GGraessle

02/12/04 3:57 PM

#10 RE: jurisper #9

I was away for the past week, guess I missed some excitement. I see that Law suits have already been filed. That's the difference between a pink sheet stock and one on the NAZ, money. lol

Press Release Source: Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP


Cauley Geller Announces Class Action Lawsuit Against Sonus Networks, Inc. On Behalf of Investors
Thursday February 12, 1:47 pm ET


NEW YORK, Feb. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP announced today that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Sonus Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: SONS - News; "Sonus" or the "Company") publicly traded securities during the period between June 3, 2003 and February 11, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the firm's website at http://www.cauleygeller.com/show_case.asp?ccode=244&pcode=10&pp=4 .
The complaint charges Sonus Networks, Inc., Hassan Ahmed and Stephen Nill with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous statements to the market concerning the Company's financial results, which failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (a) that defendants had improperly and untimely recognized revenue on certain of the Company's customer transactions; (b) that defendants violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and the Company's own internal policies regarding the timing of revenue recognition; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's revenues, net income and earnings per share published during the Class Period were materially false and misleading.

On February 11, 2004, after the close of regular trading, Sonus shocked the market when it announced that the Company had identified certain issues, practices and actions of certain employees relating to both the timing of revenue recognized from certain customer transactions and to certain other financial statement accounts, which may affect the Company's 2003 financial statements and possibly financial statements for prior periods. Prior to disclosing these adverse facts, Sonus completed a $126.14 million public offering, and Sonus insiders sold approximately $2 million of their personally-held shares to the unsuspecting public.

The next morning, when the market opened for trading, shares of the Company's stock fell as low as $5.02 per share, a decline of $1.67 per share, or 24.9%, on extremely high trading volume.

If you bought Sonus publicly traded securities between June 3, 2003 and February 11, 2004, inclusive, and you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 12, 2004. If you are a member of this class, you can join this class action online at http://www.cauleygeller.com/template8.asp?pcode=6&pp=1 . Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through Cauley Geller or other counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Cauley Geller is a national law firm that represents investors and consumers in class action and corporate governance litigation. It is one of the country's premiere firms in the area of securities fraud, with in-house finance and forensic accounting specialists and extensive trial experience. Since its founding, Cauley Geller has recovered in excess of two billion dollars on behalf of aggrieved shareholders. The firm maintains offices in Boca Raton, Little Rock and New York.

If you have any questions about how you may be able to recover for your losses, or if you would like to consider serving as one of the lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit, you are encouraged to call or e-mail the Firm or visit the Firm's website at www.cauleygeller.com .

Contact:

CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & RUDMAN, LLP

Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.

Client Relations Department:
Chandra West, Jackie Addison or Heather Gann
P.O. Box 25438
Little Rock, AR 72221-5438
Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944
Fax: 1-501-312-8505
E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040212/dath029_1.html

icon url

GGraessle

03/16/04 10:49 AM

#11 RE: jurisper #9

Jurisper -

Did you noticed Nortel has a little problem to deal with now as well and tossed it's stock in the dumper! lol

Shares of Nortel Drop as It Places Financial Officers on Paid Leave
By MATT RICHTEL

Published: March 16, 2004


Shares of Nortel Networks, the biggest maker of telecommunications equipment in North America, plunged 18.5 percent today, after the company said it placed two of its top financial officers on paid leave.

Wall Street analysts said the suspension of Douglas C. Beatty, the chief financial officer, and Michael J. Gollogly, the controller, suggested that the company faced deeper accounting troubles than investors were led to believe when Nortel announced an internal audit in October. And the analysts said that the drop in shares of Nortel, which fell $1.19 yesterday to close at $5.24, and then slid further in after-hours trading, showed investors' sensitivity to corporate malfeasance in light of recent scandals.

"When there's a whiff of impropriety, the response is: shoot first, ask questions later,'" said Paul Sagawa, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein. He added that while this situation may turn out to be relatively benign, "People got pretty burned on Enron, WorldCom and the others."

Nortel, based in Brampton, Ontario, said the executives were on leave pending completion of the internal audit, and that it had hired an interim chief financial officer and an interim controller to complete the review.

Nortel has also alerted the Securities and Exchange Commission and Canadian regulators of the leadership change and is cooperating with inquiries from those agencies, said Christina Warren, a spokeswoman for Nortel.

"It's disappointing," Ms. Warren said of the company's decision to put two executives on paid leave. "But it nevertheless shows this company's commitment to high corporate governance."

On Friday, Nortel announced that it must restate earnings for 2003, as well as for some earlier quarters, though the company did not specify how many quarters or which quarters it would restate.

The company said, without elaborating, that those restatements were because of the need to re-examine "establishment, timing of, support for and release to income of certain accruals and provisions in prior periods." It also said that because of the need to restate past earnings, it would not meet the March 30 deadline for completion of the securities filings that it must deliver to satisfy agreements with its creditors.

Several Wall Street analysts said that they did not consider Friday's announcement to be cause for intense concern, given the nature of internal audits. But they said that yesterday's decision to put two financial executives on leave raised serious red flags, and suggested that the reasons for the delay in the audit might be more troubling than investors were led to believe.

"This is a big black eye," said Jim Kelleher, an analyst with Argus Research. "It shows real mismanagement in their accounting practices."

Mr. Kelleher said Nortel would not be in default of loans, but it could face automatic repayment within 90 days if it did not file its financial reports, or renegotiate its loan agreements with creditors.

This is not the first hint of accounting trouble for Nortel. In February 2002, its chief financial officer at the time, Terry Hungle, was fired amid allegations he violated rules for investing in the company's retirement plan. In October, the company said it would restate earnings and losses dating back three and a half years, after discovering mistakes in recording some restructuring costs and revenues.

The latest news comes as Nortel is enjoying revived business fortunes. Mr. Kelleher noted that in last year's fourth quarter, ended Dec. 31, Nortel had $390 million in operating income from its continuing business operations, surpassing the total returns for those operations for the previous three quarters.

The fortunes have revived, several analysts said, because Nortel has done an impressive job at helping its customers make the transition from the older telecommunications equipment to newer technology, based on delivering information in Internet data packets.

Its successes have driven up the stock price in recent months. The stock has climbed steadily since last July, when it was below $3. In the middle of February, it hit $8.50, only to fall to $5.24 yesterday.

With the company giving no explanation for putting the two executives on leave, Wall Street analysts struggled to understand why the company took that action.

Mr. Sagawa, the analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein, said the reason the two executives were put on leave could be as benign as the fact that the company wanted to bring in a new set of eyes to oversee the audit.

But he said the decision, which he described as "not standard practice," raises several other more troubling possibilities: that the suspended executives were themselves involved in some problematic accounting, or had obstructed the auditing effort, or that they were too inexperienced to do the job in a timely manner. The fact the company put the executives on leave, "suggests the scope of what went wrong was pretty large," Mr. Sagawa said.

Gina Sockolow, an analyst with Buckingham Research, said that she believed that the accounting problems might stretch back to the Internet bubble period.

Ms. Sockolow said Nortel, like other companies, gave no-interest loans to its customers, and that the company might not have properly accounted for that practice.

If so, Ms. Sockolow said, the problem could be traced back to Frank A. Dunn, Nortel's current chief executive, who was chief financial officer in 2001.

"Heads will roll," said Ms. Sockolow, asserting that the troubles could force out Mr. Dunn.

Mr. Kelleher said he did not agree that Mr. Dunn would necessarily be tarnished. Mr. Dunn, he noted, "has been partly responsible for steadying the ship" at Nortel