Discussions

News: Using J2EE Compliance to boost stock prices?

  1. Personalization and application framework maker Broadvision is being sued by its shareholders for making "positive but false statements about BroadVision's business" in its 4th quarter 2000 results. "Furthermore, they knew that BroadVision's new version of its One-to-One Enterprise product (Version 6.0) ... did not meet J2EE standards. This would reduce demand for this new product..."

    This Broadvision Enterprise 6.0 whitepaper (PDF) written in November of 2000 outlines all of the support Broadvision was claiming to support with its next release of Enterprise one to one, which is one of the many items underdispute as part of this lawsuit.

    Press Release:
    ----------------------------
    INTERNET WIRE -- Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed Class Action lawsuits against the following companies at the request of shareholders who purchased during these class periods. If you are a purchaser of the following securities during the stated time periods, you may contact us to learn more about these cases and about your rights as an investor. Over the past three decades, Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP (www.kkf-law.com) has actively participated in prosecuting investor class actions and actions involving financial fraud in which substantial recoveries were obtained.
    BroadVision, Inc. (NASDAQ: BVSN - news): Class Period: January 26, 2001 and April 2, 2001 inclusive: The complaint charges BroadVision and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BroadVision develops, markets and supports application software solutions designed for one-to-one relationship management across extended enterprises. The complaint alleges that by late 2000, BroadVision's stock price had declined significantly due to reduced demand for its products and slowing sales. By the time BroadVision reported its results for the 4thQ 00 on 1/25/01, BroadVision's CEO and CFO were aware that the Company was suffering from a combination of declining demand and out of control expenses. Furthermore, they knew that BroadVision's new version of its One-to-One Enterprise product (Version 6.0), due to be released in the 1stQ 01, did not meet J2EE standards. This would reduce demand for this new product and further impact BroadVision's future growth and impair their ability to make future stock sales and extract future bonuses, which were tied to the Company's performance. Thus, defendants continued to make positive but false statements about BroadVision's business and future revenues when reporting the Company's 4thQ 00 results. As a result, BroadVision's stock traded as high as $15 3/16 during the class period.

    On 04/02/01, after the close of market, BroadVision announced its preliminary 1stQ 01 results, the revision of its previously reported 4thQ 00 results and a one-time charge in the 2ndQ 01. For the fourth quarter, BroadVision restated downwards its pro-forma earnings per share by 50%, from $0.02 to $0.01. This disclosure shocked the market, causing BroadVision's stock to decline to $2 13/16 per share before closing at $2 31/32 on 4/3/01, inflicting hundreds of millions of dollars of damage on plaintiff and the Class. In addition, BroadVision's CFO sold 30,000 shares of his BroadVision stock before the bad news was revealed to the market.

    Dollar General Corp. (NYSE:DG - news): Class Period: May 12, 1998 and April 27, 2001 inclusive: The complaint charges Dollar General and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Dollar General reported materially false and misleading financial results for fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000 in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). As a result of defendants' fraudulent conduct and misleading statements, the price of Dollar General common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. On April 30, 2001, the Company issued a press release entitled, "Dollar General Expects to Restate Earnings; Maintains Current Year Guidance." The press release stated in part, "Dollar General Corporation announced today that it expects to delay the filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year 2000 in anticipation of restating its audited financial statements for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 as well as restating the unaudited financial information for the fiscal year 2000 as previously released. The Company has become aware of certain accounting irregularities, and the audit committee of the Company's board of directors is conducting an investigation of these irregularities." On this news, trading in Dollar General shares plunged to $16.50, a loss of more than 30% in one day.

    NCI Building Systems, Inc. (NYSE: NCS - news): Class Period: August 25, 1999 - April 12, 2001 inclusive: The complaint charges NCI and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading financial statements and press releases concerning NCI's publicly reported earnings. On April 12, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing it had determined that its audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2000, as well as for the quarter ended January 31, 2001, were required to be restated due to "accounting errors." NCI also revealed that some adjustments may also be required for the financial statements for the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 1999. NCI further revealed that the Company's management information system routinely processed some accounting entries incorrectly, which were routinely masked by improper manual accounting entries. NCI claims that the individuals responsible for the improper entries are no longer with the Company.

    As a result of the accounting irregularities, NCI revised its net income for fiscal 2000 to $43.8 million or $2.40 per diluted share, compared with the previously reported income of $51.9 million or $2.84 per diluted share. NCI also revised its net income for quarter ended January 31, 2001 to $2.6 million or $0.15 per diluted share, compared with $4.0 million or $0.22 per diluted share. NCI further revealed that the sales for the second quarter ending April 30, 2001 would be down compared to the $216.6 million reported in the first quarter of fiscal 2001 and that it expects net income to be significantly below the restated net income for the first fiscal quarter of 2001. On Monday, April 16, 2001, NCI's common stock price plunged 32% to close at $12.45 per share, after disclosure of the accounting irregularities.

    To ensure that you will be included in a list of class members, or if you have any questions concerning this Notice, the actions, or your rights, please visit our website at www.kkf-law.com or email us at mail@kkf-law.com or call us toll free at (800) 290-1952.

    Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, 805 Third Avenue, 22nd FL, New York, NY 10022

    Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, 100 Pine Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111



    Threaded Messages (4)

  2. From another angle.[ Go to top ]

    I think it makes more sense to sue them from the point of view of why are they investing in writing a J2EE server at all when it's clear people are buying the value added stack that broadvision offers and not their app server.

    They 'should' be leveraging WebLogic and other existing servers rather than trying to write their own. This extra investment could arguably by better invested in enhancing their proprietary software layered on top rather than on yet another J2EE server.

    Trying to sell the stack on top of a proprietary J2EE server (standard or not) won't help them sell any more licenses, selling it on top of WebLogic for example would help.
  3. From another angle.[ Go to top ]

    I have worked on a project using Broadvision in it's latest guise. I agree with Billy that they shouldn't be trying to do the whole J2EE thing, it's not their core competence.

    However, they had to do some of the J2EE things. For instance, prior to 6.0 you had to write your JSPs in server side JavaScript (the mere thought of maintaining a site done that way sends shivers down my spine.)

    Getting <6.0 to talk to WebLogic was not particularly nice (it relied on the CreateJavaObject(...) method in JavaScript.)

    In 6.0 they have embedded the tomcat JSP engine; this was a good call in my opinion. They can now build front ends, using all their existing (excellent) personalization components but using a much nicer MVC model, with servlets and JSPs.

    To my mind, they were right to do the JSP / servlet thing, as this lets them get at any Java classes they might want. Writing something that can run EJBs? Not worth it. With this new version they can very easily talk to any other EJB server and be done with it.

    Chz

    Tony
  4. From another angle.[ Go to top ]

    Also, BroadVision just released a version of their product that runs on WebLogic Server 6.0 -- an engineering effort that has been ongoing for 9 months for them. I suspect they'll see a return on their investment in the next couple of quarters.
  5. From another angle.[ Go to top ]

    That makes more sense. From working with them, they're a good group of people, so it makes sense for them to be integrating products like WebLogic, this is what I would expect from them.

    Chz

    Tony