Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 09/30/2014 (Other)

Filing Date: September 13, 2011

According to a press release dated September 13, 2011, the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $48.99 per share on February 16, 2011.

In July 2010, the Company completed its acquisition of a provider of smartphones for $1.2 billion. During the Class Period, defendants represented that spartphone operating system was going to play an integral role in the Company’s strategy going forward, including running on a new line of tablet personal computers as well as on all of the Company’s PCs by 2012.

Then, on August 18, 2011, the Company announced disappointing third quarter fiscal 2011 financial results and issued revised guidance for fiscal year 2011. In addition, it announced several major shifts in its long-term business model, including that it “will discontinue operations for [smartphone operating system] devices....” As news began to leak into the market, on August 18, 2011, the Company’s stock declined $1.88 per share, to close at $29.51 per share. The next day, stock price fell to its lowest level in 6 years, trading as low as $22.75 per share before closing at $23.60.

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 business model was not working, as the Company was unable to leverage its extensive portfolio and scale of products and services in a strategically beneficial manner; (b) the smartphone operating system devices’ and the PC business were not central to the Company’s business model and operating system would not be integrated across the Company’s entire product line; (c) the tablet hardware was inefficient, limiting the degree of effectiveness of the operating system; and (d) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s turnaround, revenue growth rates, market share, new product introductions, diluted EPS, and the Company’s ability to deliver upon its long-term growth model.

On December 19, 2011, the Court issued an order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.

On February 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On August 29, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. On October 19, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.

On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given the choice to file an amended complaint.

On March 31, 2014, a Stipulation of Settlement between the parties was entered into the Court's docket. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on May 2, 2014.

On September 15, 2014, the Court issued a Final Judgment and Order granting final approval of the Settlement. The Court also entered an Order awarding attorneys' fees and expenses.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Hardware
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HPQ
Company Market: New York SE
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 11-CV-01404
JUDGE: Hon.Andrew J. Guilford
DATE FILED: 09/13/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/22/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/18/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Office of Marc S. Henzel

    ·
  2. 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 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 11-CV-01404
JUDGE: Hon.Andrew J. Guilford
DATE FILED: 02/10/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/22/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/18/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego - former)
    402 West Broadway , Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego - former), CA 92101
    619.230.0800 619.230.1874 · info@barrack.com
  2. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
  3. Motley Rice LLC (Hartford)
    One Corporate Center; 20 Church St.; 17th Floor, Motley Rice LLC (Hartford), CT
    860.882.1681 860.882.1681 · inquiry@motleyrice.com
No Document Title Filing Date