Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation

United States District Court, N.D. California

February 11, 2015

IN RE VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: All Actions

For Michael Brado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff: Hal Davis Cunningham, LEAD ATTORNEY, Scott Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, San Diego, CA; Amber L. Eck, Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, San Diego, CA; David R. Scott, Scott & Scott LLP, Colchester, CT; Joseph Daniel Cohen, Scott Scott LLP, New York, NY; Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott LLP, New York, NY; Stephen J. Teti, Scott Scott, Colchester, CT.

For Baltimore County Employees' Retirement System, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff: Joel H. Bernstein, Michael Walter Stocker, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Joseph A. Fonti, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Carol C. Villegas, Jonathan Gardner, Mark S. Goldman, PRO HAC VICE, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Danielle Suzanne Myers, Darren Jay Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, San Francisco, CA; Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Francisco, CA.

For Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff: Joel H. Bernstein, Mark S. Goldman, Michael Walter Stocker, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Joseph A. Fonti, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Carol C. Villegas, Jonathan Gardner, PRO HAC VICE, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Danielle Suzanne Myers, Darren Jay Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Michael John von Loewenfeldt, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, San Francisco, CA; Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Francisco, CA.

For Vocera Communications Inc, Robert J. Zollars, Brent D. Lang, Martin J. Silver, William R. Zerella, Brian D. Ascher, John B. Grotting, Jeffrey H. Hillebrand, Howard E. Janzen, John N. McMullen, Hany M. Nada, Donald F. Wood, Defendants: Catherine Duden Kevane, Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Susan Samuels Muck, Marie Caroline Bafus, Fenwick and West LLP, San Francisco, CA; Ronnie Solomon, Fenwick and West LLP, Mountain View, CA.

For J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, William Blair & Company LLC, Wells Fargo Securities LLC, Leerink Swann LLC, Defendants: Norman J. Blears, LEAD ATTORNEY, Matthew James Dolan, Sidley Austin LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Simona Gurevich Strauss, LEAD ATTORNEY, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Palo Alto, CA.

CLASS ACTION ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Docket Nos. 110-111)

EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint (" CAC") against (1) Vocera Communications Inc., and its executives (" Vocera Defendants"); and (2) J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Piper Jaffray & Co; Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.; William Blair & Company, LLC; Wells Fargo Securities, LLC; Leerink Swann LLC (collectively " Underwriter Defendants"). Docket No. 1. The CAC alleges the Vocera Defendants knew that the ACA and the BCA were causing this slowdown in sales growth, and engaged in a scheme to hide this fact from investors by not disclosing the fact that Vocera was not meeting its internal sales goal and artificially inflating sales revenues at the end of each quarter by shipping sales ahead of schedule.

In claims 1 and 2, Plaintiffs allege violations of § 10(b) and § 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In claims 3, 4 and 5, Plaintiffs allege Defendants also violated § § 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 respectively.

For the reasons stated on the record at the January 15, 2015 hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss and as summarized and supplemented below, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss claims 1 and 2, and GRANTS the motion to dismiss claims 3, 4, and 5, with LEAVE TO AMEND.

The CAC alleges, inter alia, that:

o During the class period, Vocera was consistently falling short of its sales and revenue projections ( See Exhibit A);
o During that same period, a sudden and substantial influx of revenue would occur in the run-up to reporting, and Vocera would meet it guidance for the quarter ( See Exhibit B; see also TRX at 49:2-24);
o Confidential witnesses (" CW") attribute this influx of revenue to Vocera's practice of shipping products ahead of time to make up for its shortfall in sales and revenue ( See ¶ ¶ 104, 110);
o CW1 also indicated that the Defendants were consistently present at revenue meetings in which (1) these revenue shortfalls and back-fills were discussed; and (2) the ACA and BCA were discussed as ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.