COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY INC CMVT (last ticker on record)
CIK 803014Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- Restatement
- SEC/DOJ scrutiny
- Delisting notice (not a red flag)
These figures describe clients, not conduct. A lawyer or firm can serve many companies that later had trouble for reasons that have nothing to do with their work, and nothing here says any lawyer or firm did anything wrong.
- Red flags
- 2
- Newest began Feb 2010
- Largest fall in its shares
- —
- None of 95% on record
- Law firms
- 8
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 5
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- A filing mentions cooperating with the SECForm 10-K (opens in a new tab)
- A filing mentions a formal order of investigationForm 10-K (opens in a new tab)
- A filing mentions a Wells noticeForm 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- A filing mentions a Wells noticeForm 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- A filing mentions a formal order of investigationForm 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Said its accounts could not be relied on (Item 4.02)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Said its accounts could not be relied on (Item 4.02)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
An SEC release can name a company’s officer, or its stock as what a scheme sold or moved, so the company may be the victim. Each link goes to what to read.
Law firms
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloyFirst linked Oct 2011 · Named in SEC correspondence · 439 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.03× · Went dark 0.35× · 95% wipeout 0.76×
- Shearman & SterlingFirst linked Nov 2004 · Named in a filing · 2,649 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.21× · Went dark 0.13× · 95% wipeout 0.87×
- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLPFirst linked May 2000 · Named in SEC correspondence · 1,051 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.31× · Went dark 0.27× · 95% wipeout 0.91×
- Cravath Swaine & MooreFirst linked Nov 1997 · Named in a filing · 839 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.29× · Went dark 0.03× · 95% wipeout 0.85×
- HALE AND DORRFirst linked Nov 1997 · Named in a filing · 665 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.06× · Went dark 0.33× · 95% wipeout 1.26×
- Munger Tolles & OlsonFirst linked Aug 1995 · Named in SEC correspondence · 80 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.57× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.87×
- Olshan Frome Wolosky LLPFirst linked Apr 2012 · Text search only · 390 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.38× · Went dark 0.86× · 95% wipeout 1.22×
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPFirst linked Feb 2001 · Text search only · 1,125 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.23× · Went dark 0.20× · 95% wipeout 0.96×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy | Oct 2011 | Named in SEC correspondence | 439 | 1.03 | 0.35 | 0.76 |
| Shearman & Sterling | Nov 2004 | Named in a filing | 2,649 | 1.21 | 0.13 | 0.87 |
| Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP | May 2000 | Named in SEC correspondence | 1,051 | 1.31 | 0.27 | 0.91 |
| Cravath Swaine & Moore | Nov 1997 | Named in a filing | 839 | 1.29 | 0.03 | 0.85 |
| HALE AND DORR | Nov 1997 | Named in a filing | 665 | 1.06 | 0.33 | 1.26 |
| Munger Tolles & Olson | Aug 1995 | Named in SEC correspondence | 80 | 1.57 | 0.00 | 0.87 |
| Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP | Apr 2012 | Text search only | 390 | 1.38 | 0.86 | 1.22 |
| Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | Feb 2001 | Text search only | 1,125 | 1.23 | 0.20 | 0.96 |
Lawyers
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Bradley C. BrasserJones DayFirst linked Feb 2013 · Named in a filing · 20 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.39× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.30×
- Robert Evans IIIShearman & SterlingFirst linked Nov 2004 · Named in a filing · 25 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.91× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.32×
- David E. ZeltnerWeil, Gotshal & Manges LLPFirst linked Aug 2004 · Named in SEC correspondence · 18 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.32× · Went dark 1.66× · 95% wipeout 0.96×
- Stephen M. BesenWeil, Gotshal & Manges LLPFirst linked May 2000 · Named in a filing · 16 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.88× · Went dark 1.54× · 95% wipeout 0.64×
- ALLEN FINKELSONCravath Swaine & MooreFirst linked Nov 1997 · Named in a filing · 12 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 2.65× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.99×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bradley C. BrasserJones Day | Feb 2013 | Named in a filing | 20 | 0.39 | 0.00 | 1.30 |
| Robert Evans IIIShearman & Sterling | Nov 2004 | Named in a filing | 25 | 0.91 | 0.00 | 1.32 |
| David E. ZeltnerWeil, Gotshal & Manges LLP | Aug 2004 | Named in SEC correspondence | 18 | 1.32 | 1.66 | 0.96 |
| Stephen M. BesenWeil, Gotshal & Manges LLP | May 2000 | Named in a filing | 16 | 1.88 | 1.54 | 0.64 |
| ALLEN FINKELSONCravath Swaine & Moore | Nov 1997 | Named in a filing | 12 | 2.65 | 0.00 | 0.99 |