 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Green Dot Corporation Summary: According to the law firm press release, the Complaint charges Green Dot and certain of the Company’s executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Green Dot provides widely distributed, low cost banking and payment solutions to a broad base of domestic consumers. Green Dot's products and services include General Purpose Reloadable (“GPR”) prepaid cards.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Green Dot’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company’s new internal risk policies and procedures were negatively impacting Green Dot’s growth in new account activations; (2) that certain of Green Dot’s retailers were planning to start selling competitive GPR products in addition to the Company’s products; (3) that the Company lacked historical data to accurately predict how other retailers’ sales of competitive GPR products would impact Green Dot’s sales; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the defendants’ positive statements about Green Dot’s business, operations and prospects, as well as those regarding Green Dot’s revenue outlook for the 2012 fiscal year, lacked a reasonable basis.
On July 26, 2012, after the market closed, Green Dot disclosed that it was updating its previously issued outlook for the remainder of the year to reflect the impact of new competition and new internal risk policies and controls. Specifically, the Company announced that the revised outlook reflects “the impact of new internal risk policies and controls to improve the security and quality of [Green Dot’s] portfolio,” and that the “reforecast also assumes that by later this year, many of [the Company’s] retailers will start to sell competitive GPR products in addition to [Green Dot’s] products.” Moreover, the Company admitted that “[b]ecause we lack the historical data to accurately predict how [the new competition] will impact [Green Dot’s] sales, we have taken what we believe to be a conservative view of any potential impact.”
As a result of this news, the Company's shares declined $14.26 per share, or 61.15%, to close on July 27, 2012 at $9.06 per share, on unusually heavy volume.
On October 25, 2012, the Court issued an order of consolidation along with appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On December 21, 2012, Consolidated Complaint was filed by the lead plaintiffs against the defendants.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6199
Sector: Financial
Industry: Money Center Banks
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Green Dot Corporation |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | GDOT |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.greendotcorp.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Bryan Zee, et al. v. Green Dot Corporation, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 07/27/2012 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 07/31/2012 | ||
| Order Granting Motion for Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 10/25/2012 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re Green Dot Corporation Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Corrected Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 12/27/2012 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 12/27/2012 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
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