| Company: | DDi Corporation |
| Ticker Symbol: | OTCBB:DDIC; DDICQ |
| Class Period: | December 19, 2000 toApril 29, 2002 |
| Court: | Central District, CA |
| Date Filed: | Oct-01-03 |
| Lead Plaintiff Deadline: | Dec-01-03 |
| Allegations: |
A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of DDi Corporation ("DDi") (OTCBB:DDIC; DDICQ) publicly traded securities during the period between December 19, 2000 and April 29, 2002 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges certain of DDi's officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DDi provides technologically advanced, time-critical electronics engineering, development and manufacturing services to original equipment manufacturers and other providers of electronics manufacturing services. The complaint alleges that the true facts which were known by each of the defendants, but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:
(a) The Company's financial results were overstated. Specifically, the Company failed to properly conduct its impairment test of the Company's assets, including goodwill. Moreover, the Company had overstated the value of its inventory;
(b) The Company's receivables and projections were grossly overstated as the Company's clients were delaying payment and/or defaulting on their debts to DDi as the technology market continued to deteriorate;
(c) The Company's results, which defendants claimed "out performed [their] expectations," were the result of improper accounting, and not as claimed;
(d) The Company's clients were not, as defendants suggested, converting their prototypes into preproduction orders;
(e) The Company's Anaheim plant was in disarray, requiring massive restructuring of the facilities and causing the Company to incur massive costs;
(f) The Company's Tokyo offices were hemorrhaging cash and were draining the Company's resources;
(g) The Company's United Kingdom design centers were essentially creating redundant expenses and were inefficient, causing the Company's valuation of these centers to be overvalued;
(h) The Company was in violation of its financial covenants and had delayed the breakdown of its assets for multiple quarters in order to avoid lenders' and shareholders' knowledge of the Company's violation;
(i) The Company's Moorpark, California operations and Texas operations were hemorrhaging millions of dollars quarterly and required that the defendants write down their value by the end of the first quarter 2001 by approximately $10 million; and (j) The Company's post acquisition valuation of its Sanmina acquisition was grossly overvalued.
As a result of the defendants' alleged false statements, DDi's stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $35.50 on January 30, 2001, whereby the Company's top officers and directors sold more than $20 million worth of their own shares.
If you acquired the securities of the defendants during the Class Period you may, no later than Dec 1, 2003, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff through counsel of your choice. You may also choose to remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff must meet certain requirements.
The complaint charges certain of DDi's officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DDi provides technologically advanced, time-critical electronics engineering, development and manufacturing services to original equipment manufacturers and other providers of electronics manufacturing services. The complaint alleges that the true facts which were known by each of the defendants, but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:
(a) The Company's financial results were overstated. Specifically, the Company failed to properly conduct its impairment test of the Company's assets, including goodwill. Moreover, the Company had overstated the value of its inventory;
(b) The Company's receivables and projections were grossly overstated as the Company's clients were delaying payment and/or defaulting on their debts to DDi as the technology market continued to deteriorate;
(c) The Company's results, which defendants claimed "out performed [their] expectations," were the result of improper accounting, and not as claimed;
(d) The Company's clients were not, as defendants suggested, converting their prototypes into preproduction orders;
(e) The Company's Anaheim plant was in disarray, requiring massive restructuring of the facilities and causing the Company to incur massive costs;
(f) The Company's Tokyo offices were hemorrhaging cash and were draining the Company's resources;
(g) The Company's United Kingdom design centers were essentially creating redundant expenses and were inefficient, causing the Company's valuation of these centers to be overvalued;
(h) The Company was in violation of its financial covenants and had delayed the breakdown of its assets for multiple quarters in order to avoid lenders' and shareholders' knowledge of the Company's violation;
(i) The Company's Moorpark, California operations and Texas operations were hemorrhaging millions of dollars quarterly and required that the defendants write down their value by the end of the first quarter 2001 by approximately $10 million; and (j) The Company's post acquisition valuation of its Sanmina acquisition was grossly overvalued.
As a result of the defendants' alleged false statements, DDi's stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $35.50 on January 30, 2001, whereby the Company's top officers and directors sold more than $20 million worth of their own shares.
If you acquired the securities of the defendants during the Class Period you may, no later than Dec 1, 2003, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff through counsel of your choice. You may also choose to remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff must meet certain requirements.
