Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/10/2013 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: November 28, 2011

According to a press release dated November 28, 2011, the Company issued false and misleading statements concealing known quality control problems and process defects at the Company's new overseas contact lens manufacturing facilities.

The complaint alleges that following the announcement of a small voluntary recall, the significance of which the Company and its senior executives intentionally downplayed, on November 15, 2011, Cooper was forced to disclose a much larger product recall and to finally disclose the seriousness of the potential injuries. As the market learned the true extent of the Company's production issues, product safety defects and the harm to its reputation and product marketability, the Company's stock price declined precipitously.

On February 29, 2012, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead Counsel.

On May 4, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

On January 7, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on February 4.

On May 31, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: COO
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 11-CV-05697
JUDGE: Hon.Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
DATE FILED: 11/28/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/04/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/15/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. 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
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 11-CV-05697
JUDGE: Hon.Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
DATE FILED: 05/04/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/04/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/15/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Motley Rice LLC (Mount Pleasant)
    28 Bridgeside Boulevard, Motley Rice LLC (Mount Pleasant), SC 29464
    843.216.9000 843.216.9450 · inquiry@motleyrice.com
  2. Motley Rice LLP
    1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor, Motley Rice LLP, CA 90024
    310-500-3488 310-824-2870 ·
  3. 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