Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/03/2013 (Other)

Filing Date: March 04, 2011

According to the press release dated March 04, 2011, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Equinix was having difficulty with the integration of Switch & Data Corporation Facilities Company (acquired in April 2010) into its operations due to a decline in bookings prior to the close of the acquisition and due to the Company’s aggressive synergy plan. Defendants further continuously hyped demand for the Company’s colocation services as being robust and failed to disclose that the Company’s business model was not working and was causing the Company to experience increased churn and pricing pressure on its collocation services. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Equinix’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $105.09 per share on October 5, 2010.

After the market closed on October 5, 2010, Equinix issued a press release announcing revised third quarter and fiscal year 2010 guidance. The Company reported it expected revenue to be in the range of $328.0 to $330.0 million for the third quarter of 2010. The Company further reported it expected revenues for the full year 2010 to be approximately $1,215.0 million, 1.2% lower than the midpoint of its previous outlook. In addition, the Company announced that it would transition from a demand fulfillment business model to a demand creation model. On this news, Equinix’s stock collapsed $34.75 per share to close at $70.34 per share on October 6, 2010, a one-day decline of over 33% on high volume.

On June 10, 2011, the District Court issued an order after consideration of the unopposed Motion for Administrative Relief to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related and concluded that a separate case related to the current action.

On August 8, 2011, the Court issued an order appointing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approving their choice of lead counsel.

On September 22, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint.

On March 2, 2012, the Court issued an order granting defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. On May 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days of this order. On January 15, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint.

On June 12, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: EQIX
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 #: 11-CV-01016
JUDGE: Hon. Samuel Conti
DATE FILED: 03/04/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/29/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/05/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 11-CV-01016
JUDGE: Hon. Samuel Conti
DATE FILED: 09/22/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/29/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/05/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cavanagh & O'Hara
    407 East Adams Street, Cavanagh & O'Hara, IL 62701
    217.544.1771 217.544.1771 ·
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date