NEW YORK, Nov. 4, 2003 (PRIMEZONE) -- A class action complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, case number 03 Civ. 7883, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired DDi Corporation ("DDi" or the "Company") securities (OTCBB:DDICQ) during the period between December 19, 2000 and April 29, 2002, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint names Joseph P. Gisch, Bruce D. McMaster, Charles Dimick Gregory Halvorson and John Peters as defendants.
To discuss this action, this announcement, or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Eric J. Belfi or Gregory Linkh at Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by telephone at (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by facsimile at (212) 682-1892, or by e-mail at info@rabinlaw.com.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (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.
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: 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.
Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP. Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP and its predecessor firms have devoted its practice to shareholder class actions and complex commercial litigation for more than thirty years and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders in class actions throughout the United States.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired DDi common stock during the Class Period described above, you may, no later than December 1, 2003, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff. To serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. You can join this action as a lead plaintiff online at www.rabinlaw.com. Contact plaintiff's counsel Eric J. Belfi or Gregory Linkh of Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP to further discuss this action, this announcement, or your rights or interests.
More information on this and other class actions can be found on the Class Action Newsline at www.primezone.com/ca