|
Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. SafeNet, Inc., et al.
Michael J. Golde v. SafeNet, Inc., et al.
(United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York)
Securities fraud class action filed on behalf of a class of
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly-traded securities
of SafeNet, Inc. (“SafeNet” or the “Company”) between March 31, 2003 and May 18, 2006 (the “Class Period”).
On February 21, 2007, the Honorable Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of
New York appointed BLB&G client the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, as well as the
Plymouth County Retirement System and the State-Boston Retirement System, as Co-Lead Plaintiffs for the Class
in the consolidated action. BLB&G was appointed as Co-Lead Counsel.
No consolidated complaint is yet to be filed in this action.
Complaints filed by BLB&G clients prior to the appointment of the Co-Lead Plaintiffs may be viewed by
clicking on the below links:
Class Action Complaint - Michael J. Golde v. SafeNet, Inc., et al.,
Case No., 06-CV-6194 (filed August 15, 2006)
Class Action Complaint - Police & Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit v. SafeNet, Inc., et al., Case No., 06-CV-5797 (filed August 1, 2006)
The Complaints allege that during the Class Period,
SafeNet and the individual defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading proxy statements and periodic SEC filings. The Complaints also allege that, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants improperly administered SafeNet stock option plans to provide themselves with
unlawful benefits, which they materially misrepresented and failed to disclose to the public and which they
failed to properly account for in SafeNet’s reported financial statements. Defendants’ misrepresentations
regarding its stock option grants were disseminated to the public in SafeNet’s annual and quarterly filings,
as well as annual proxy statements, throughout the Class Period.
The Complaints further allege that in connection
with SafeNet’s solicitation for the approval of its stock-for-stock merger transaction with Rainbow, effectuated on
March 15, 2004, SafeNet and certain of the individual defendants issued a false and misleading registration statement
and joint proxy statement/prospectus, thereby injuring Rainbow’s shareholders who accepted the terms of the merger
exchange. Finally, the Complaints allege that during the second and third quarters of 2005,
defendants engaged in improper accounting of revenues and costs relating to certain long-term delivery contracts.
In September 2006, SafeNet announced it had concluded that certain of the
Company’s options grants between 2000 and 2005 had been accounted for using incorrect measurement dates.
As a result, SafeNet announced its previously reported financial results for the period from 2000 to
March 31, 2006 should not be relied upon. In January 2007, the Company declared it would be making additional
adjustments to its prior published financial statements due to accounting errors unrelated to the granting
of stock options. Then, on March 5, 2007, SafeNet announced the Company agreed to be acquired by an
investment group for approximately $634 million. The acquisition was subsequently approved and closed.
SafeNet is yet to publish restated financial results. On July 25, 2007, the United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York announced the filing of a criminal indictment against SafeNet's former Chief
Financial Officer Carole Argo for, among other things, engaging in an illegal scheme between 2000 and 2006
to deceive the Company's Board of Directors and shareholders concerning SafeNet's systematic backdating of
options grants and causing SafeNet to publish false and misleading financial statements as a result of the
backdating scheme.
Pursuant to Court Order, Co-Lead Plaintiffs will file their consolidated
complaint upon the earlier of: (i) the issuance by SafeNet or any successor of final restated SafeNet
financial statements for the years covered by the Class Period stated in the complaints, or (ii)
a written representation from SafeNet or any successor that no such restatement will be issued.
In the interim, BLB&G continues its investigation of the alleged wrongdoing at SafeNet.
Firm partners
William C. Fredericks
and
Mark Lebovitch
and associate Matthew P. Siben are responsible for prosecuting this case.
|
