COMPANY |
Five9, Inc. |
COURT |
United States District Court for the Northern District of California |
CASE NUMBER |
24-cv-08725 |
JUDGE |
The Hon. P. Casey Pitts |
CLASS PERIOD |
June 4, 2024, though August 8, 2024 |
SECURITY TYPE |
Securities, including call options |
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE IS FEBRUARY 3, 2025.
If you have suffered losses and would like to discuss your rights, please fill out this form or you may contact Jonathan Naji, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com.
Case Background:
Five9, a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices in San Ramon, California, provides cloud-based software solutions for contact centers to enable clients to manage customer interactions through various channels, including voice, email, chat, and social media. Five9 uses a dollar-based retention rate (“DBRR”) to measure its ability to retain and grow revenue from the same client base over time and a metric called “net new business bookings” to measure Five9’s ability to acquire new customers.
On August 8, 2024, after the market closed, Five9 announced its second quarter 2024 financial results and reduced its annual revenue guidance by 3.8% due to “recent bookings trends and the uncertain economic conditions.” On the corresponding earnings call, Defendant Michael Burkland, the company’s Chief Executive Officer, revealed Five9 “had a challenging bookings quarter” due to “constrained and scrutinized” customer budgets and sales execution issues that were not “up to snuff.” Additionally, Defendant Barry Zwarenstein, the company’s Chief Financial Officer, revealed that “Q2 new logo bookings came in softer than expected” and that Five9 was “no longer assuming” a DBRR inflection in the second half of the year because of a “more muted seasonality in our service bookings.” On this news, the price of Five9 common stock declined $11.25 per share, or more than 26%, from a close of $42.47 per share on August 8, 2024, to close at $31.22 per share on August 9, 2024.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Five9’s net new business was hampered by macroeconomic issues such as constrained and scrutinized customer budgets; (2) Five9 was in the midst of a challenging bookings quarter due, in part, to sales execution and efficiency issues, and the company was not “seeing very strong bookings momentum;” (3) Defendants did not have sufficient visibility to accurately ensure investors that Five9 would see a positive inflection in its DBRR; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ statements about the company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
What is a Lead Plaintiff?
A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Filling out the online form above or communicating with any counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery achieved in this case. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive class member.