Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/25/2014 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: August 03, 2012

According to the complaint filed on August 3, 2012, a securities fraud class action was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP" or the "Company") between November 13, 2007 and August 6, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period") and held those shares as of the close of 8 trading on August 6, 2010. Prior to and throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued statements regarding ethical standards with which HP employees and officers needed to comply. HP issued a Standards of Business Conduct Brochure (SBC) in 2006, May 2008 and June 2010.

Throughout the Class Period, HP made statements that were false and misleading due to their failure to disclose knowing violations by CEO Mark Hurd ("Hurd") of HP's Standards of Business Conduct. On August 6, 2010, the company disclosed Hurd's violations and the fact that Hurd resigned as a result. These disclosures caused HP's stock price to decline.

On November 9, 2012, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel. On December 24, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On August 9, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. On September 9, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint.

On June 25, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were not given leave to amend.

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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 12-CV-04115
JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
DATE FILED: 08/03/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/13/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/06/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. Kirby McInerney LLP (New York)
    825 Third Avenue, Kirby McInerney LLP (New York), NY 10022
    212.371.6600 212.371.6600 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 12-CV-04115
JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
DATE FILED: 09/09/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/13/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/06/2010
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. Kirby McInerney LLP (New York)
    825 Third Avenue, Kirby McInerney LLP (New York), NY 10022
    212.371.6600 212.371.6600 ·
No Document Title Filing Date