NVIDIA Corporation Summary: According to a law firm press release, a class action complaint was filed against NVIDIA and its to top officers for violations the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants issued a series of misrepresentations and omissions that actively concealed and failed to disclose the unusually high failure rates of NVIDIA's mobile video adapters and the impact of these defects on the Company's financial condition and results and future business prospects. When the defendants belatedly revealed this information on July 2, 2008, NVIDIA's stock plummeted, and the Company's market capitalization was promptly reduced by over $3 billion.
On October 30, 2008, an order was entered by the court consolidating the actions with C08-4260 be the lead case.
On December 23, 2008, an Order Appointing Lead Plaintiffs, Co-Lead Counsel was entered by the court.
On February 3, 2009, a Notice Of Substitution Of Attorney And Notice Of Appearance was filed with the court.
On February 5, 2009, a Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Regarding Deadline For Filing Consolidated Complaint was submitted to the court.
On December 08, 2009, a Stipulation Pursuant To This Court’s November 20, 2009 Order Approving Selection Of Co-Lead Counsel For Lead Plaintiff Roberto Cohen, Lead Plaintiff New Jersey Carpenters Pension And Annuity Funds, And The Class was granted.
On January 22, 2010, an Amended Consolidated Class Action for Violations of Federal Securities Laws against the defendants was filed by the lead the plaintiff.
On March 08, 2010, the Court issued a proposed order granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the claims set forth in Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
On October 19, 2010, the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs were ordered to file any amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order. Otherwise, the action will be dismissed with prejudice.
On December 02, 2011, a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed after receiving leave to amend.
On October 12, 2011, the case was dismissed without leave to amend due to the plaintiffs’ failure to plead the element of scienter that is necessary to state a claim pursuant to section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, or section 20(a).
SIC Code: 3674
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top