Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 01/29/2014 (Other)

Filing Date: September 02, 2009

The complaint charges the Defendants and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendants are a provider of haptic technologies, which allow people to use their sense of touch while operating a variety of digital devices.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s transactions in its Medical line of business. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Defendants’ revenue recognition practices in its Medical line of business were improper. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, Defendants stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $20.50 per share on July 13, 2007. Subsequently, in February 2008, Defendants announced a correction of its income tax expense for its interim 2007 results, causing the Company’s stock to drop somewhat, but the stock continued to trade at artificially inflated levels due to the Company’s reported profitability. Then, on July 1, 2009, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release announcing that the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board was conducting an internal investigation into certain previous revenue transactions in its Medical line of business. On this news, Defendants’ stock dropped over 23% from a close of $4.94 per share on June 30, 2009 to a close of $3.80 per share on July 1, 2009.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company’s revenue recognition practices with respect to its Medical line of business did not comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (b) the Company’s reported revenue and earnings were overstated due to the Company’s false accounting.

On December 21, 2009, Maxine M. Chesney signed the Order consolidating several actions under In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 09-4073 MMC. John P. Loo is appointed lead plaintiff. Loos's selection of Brower Piven as Lead Counsel and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as Liaison Counsel is approved. On April 9, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on June 15, 2010. On March 11, 2011, Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Consolidated Complaint. The Amended Complaint, if any, shall be filed no later than April 22, 2011.

The plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 29, 2011. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss.

According to a news article dated December 21, 2011, a California federal judge on Friday dismissed a $300 million proposed class action claiming Immersion Corp. and several of its current and former officers inflated the technology company's stock price by fraudulently recognizing inflated and fictitious revenue on sales of medical devices. U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney said the plaintiffs, a pair of Immersion shareholders, had neglected to correct the myriad of deficiencies in amending their consolidated complaint and had not tied the company's restated financials to any securities fraud.

On August 7, 2014, the Ninth Circuit published an Opinion affirming the above decision of the District Court dismissing this case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Peripherals
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: IMMR
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 09-CV-04073
JUDGE: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
DATE FILED: 09/02/2009
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/03/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/30/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza), NY 10119
    212.279.5050 212.279.3655 · JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com
  2. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 · info@csgrr.com/
  3. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  4. Kendall Law Group, LLP
    3232 McKinney, Ste 700, Kendall Law Group, LLP, TX 75204
    214.744.3000 214.744.3000 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 09-CV-04073
JUDGE: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
DATE FILED: 04/29/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/03/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/01/2009
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brower Piven (New York)
    488 Madison Avenue. Eighth Floor, Brower Piven (New York), NY 10022
    212.501.9000 212.501.0300 · info@browerpiven.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date