Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/18/2013 (Other)

Filing Date: August 08, 2013

According to the Complaint, CafePress operates an e-commerce platform enabling customers to create, buy, and sell various customized and personalized products worldwide.

On or about June 10, 2011, CafePress filed a registration statement with the SEC on Form S-1. Thereafter, the Company repeatedly amended the Form S-1, including on or about March 28, 2012, when CafePress filed with the SEC the final Form S-1/A (collectively, the "Registration Statement") for the IPO. On or around March 29, 2012, the Company filed with the SEC its Prospectus (the "Prospectus"), which forms part of the "Registration Statement" that was declared effective on March 28, 2012.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to disclose that the Company was being negatively impacted by known trends affecting its small shop customers. Specifically, the Company failed to disclose that its core business derived from small shop customers, whose business is largely dependent on Internet search traffic derived from search algorithms for customers, was increasingly eroding because the small shop customers were being negatively impacted by the complexity and competitiveness of the marketplace. Therefore, the Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.

On October 22, 2013, this action was remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector:
Industry:
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PRSS
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 #: 13-CV-03666
JUDGE: Hon. Kandis A. Westmore
DATE FILED: 08/08/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/29/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/10/2013
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. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
No Document Title Filing Date