Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 02/18/2011 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: October 14, 2010

According to a press release posted on the Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP website, the Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements concerning DynaVox’s business, operations and financial prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing a softening of demand for its speech generating devices and for its software products; and (2) as a result, the weak demand for the Company’s products would cause DynaVox’s financial results to trend adversely compared to the trends included in the Registration Statement.

On September 30, 2010, DynaVox issued a press release commenting on the Company’s first quarter fiscal 2011 results and disclosed that “the Company experienced a softening of demand for both its speech generating devices and software products. As a result, operating results for the fiscal first quarter will not be consistent with historical performance or indicative of what management believes to be the Company’s long-term future operating potential.”

As a result of this news, shares of DynaVox declined $2.68 per share, or approximately 33%, to close on October 1, 2010 at $5.44 per share, on unusually heavy volume of more than 3.4 million shares traded.

On December 20, 2010, the Court granted the motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel.

On February 18, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff received no compensation and voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DVOX
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: W.D. Pennsylvania
DOCKET #: 10-CV-01357
JUDGE: Hon. Donetta W. Ambrose
DATE FILED: 10/14/2010
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/21/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/21/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates
    519 Alleghany Bldg., 429 Forbes Avenue, Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates, PA 15219
    412.391.5164 ·
  3. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
No Document Title Filing Date