Research In Motion Limited ("RIM" or the Company) is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of wireless solutions for the worldwide mobile communications market. Through the development of integrated hardware, software and services that support wireless network standards, the Company provides platforms and solutions for access to time-sensitive information, including e-mail, phone, short message service, Internet and intranet-based applications. RIM’s primary revenue stream is generated by the BlackBerry wireless solution, comprised of wireless devices, software and services.

According to a press release dated May 26, 2011, the Complaint charges RIM and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that: (a) the Company failed to inform investors that its aging product line and inability to introduce new products to the market was negatively impacting the Company’s business and margins; (b) due to execution issues, product delays, and lackluster product launches, Defendants knew that shipments of Blackberry smart phones would be down and inventory would be up; and (c) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and expected earnings were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis when made.

On April 28, 2011, RIM issued a press release disclosing lowered first quarter 2012 guidance for the three months ended May 28, 2011. On this news, RIM’s common stock plummeted 14%, or $7.94 per share, to close at $48.65 per share on April 29, 2011, on heavy trading volume.

On May 31, 2011, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice.

On March 29, 2013, the Court issued an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.

On April 25, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed the judgment granting Defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. On July 14, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court.