Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 04/17/2012 (Other)

Filing Date: November 23, 2011

According to a notice of removal dated November 23, 2011, the plaintiffs charge the defendants with violations of the federal securities laws in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements.

Specificilly, the complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers released misleading statements concerning the company’s development of a technology that would rapidly read DNA sequences. Officers of the Company told Bloomberg that its technology would run sequences 30,000 times faster than its competitor’s methods. The Company continued to release positive statements about the development of its technologies in various biomedical trade journals.

On October 26, 2010, the Company raised $210 million in its IPO. At the time of the offering, the plaintiffs charge that Company had never reported any revenues, and
while the 2010 limited distribution" users had no financial obligation to purchase the RS systems they were trying out, according to the registration statement filed with the SEC to conduct the IPO, the Company then expected to begin its wider public commercial release in early 2011, and the Company then reported a $15 million sales backlog.

On March 13, 2012, an order remanding this case back to San Mateo County Superior Court was issued by the Court, thereby dismissing the case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PACB
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-05669
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 11/23/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/27/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/21/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
    P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut), CT 06415
    860.537.5537 860.537.4432 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  2. Scott & Scott LLP (San Diego)
    600 B Street, Suite 1500, Scott & Scott LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.233.4565 619.233.4565 · scottlaw@scott-scott.com
  3. Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP
    625 Broadway, Suite 1000, Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, CA 92101
    619.378.0442 619.342.7878 ·
No Document Title Filing Date