Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 12/12/2016 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 25, 2013

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that JAKKS and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s financial condition and prospects. On July 17, 2013, JAKKS announced its second quarter financial results, significantly missing the Company’s previously issued guidance, which had been recently reaffirmed in April 2013. JAKKS’ second quarter results included charges for license minimum guarantee shortfalls of $14.1 million and inventory impairment of $12.2 million. JAKKS noted that poor performance of several of the Company’s key properties contributed to the shortfall. As a result, JAKKS revised 2013 guidance from earnings of $0.63- $0.68/share to a loss of $2.56/share. JAKKS also suspended its dividend. This news caused JAKKS shares to lose over 39% of its value on July 18, 2013.

An amended complaint was filed on January 17, 2014.

A second amended complaint was filed on July 8, 2014.

A third amended complaint was filed on March 23, 2015.

On November 18, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. Judgment was entered on December 12.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Recreational Products
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: JAKK
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-05388
JUDGE: Hon. John A. Kronstadt
DATE FILED: 07/25/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/21/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
    333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., CA 90071
    213.785.2610 213.226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-05388
JUDGE: Hon. John A. Kronstadt
DATE FILED: 03/23/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/17/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    10205 N. Pennsylvania, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73120
    405.235.1560 405.235.1560 ·
  2. 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
  3. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  4. Wohl & Fruchter LLP
    570 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor, Wohl & Fruchter LLP, NY 10022
    212.758.4000 212.758.4000 ·
No Document Title Filing Date