Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/19/2017 (Other)

Filing Date: August 12, 2013

According to the law firm press release, Microsoft is the world’s largest software company, primarily as a result of its near-monopoly on Windows personal computer (“PC”) operating system software and its Microsoft Office collection of productivity programs.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and its tablet computer, the Surface RT. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and failed to make public the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company’s Surface RT product was experiencing poor customer demand and lackluster sales; (ii) that the Company’s Surface RT inventory experienced a material decline in value during the quarter ended March 31, 2013; (iii) that the Company’s financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2013 were materially false and misleading and violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Microsoft’s publicly disclosed policy of accounting for inventories; (iv) that the Company’s Form 10-Q for its third quarter of 2013 failed to disclose then presently known trends, events or uncertainties associated with the Surface RT product that were reasonably likely to have a material effect on Microsoft’s future operating results; and (v) that based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s Surface RT product during the Class Period.

On July 18, 2013, Microsoft issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fiscal 2013 fourth quarter and year end, the periods ended June 30, 2013. For the quarter, the Company reported revenue of $19.9 billion and net income of $4.97 billion, or $0.59 per share. The Company’s results for the quarter were adversely impacted by a $900 million inventory charge, or an amount equal to $.07 per share, related to Surface RT “inventory adjustments.” On this news, Microsoft common stock suffered its biggest price decline in more than four years, plunging $4.04 per share, or 11.4%, on very heavy trading volume to close at $31.40 per share.

On November 7, 2013, an Electronic Order was entered transferring this case to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2014, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on January 24.

On December 12, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector:
Industry:
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MSFT
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: W.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 13-CV-11928
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 08/12/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/18/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/18/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Hutchings, Barsamian, Mandelcorn & Zeytoonian, LLP

    ·
  2. Kenneth A. Elan (New York)
    217 Broadway, Suite 606, Kenneth A. Elan (New York), NY 10007
    212.619.0261 212.619.2707 ·
  3. Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross (Philadelphia)
    John Wanamaker Building; 100 Penn Square East, Suite 450, Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross (Philadelphia), PA 19107
    215.561.3600 215.561.3600 · susang@bernardmgross.com
  4. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: W.D. Washington
DOCKET #: 13-CV-02039
JUDGE: Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock
DATE FILED: 01/24/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/24/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/18/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. McDermott Newman PLLC
    1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200, McDermott Newman PLLC, WA 98154
    206.684.9463 206.749.9467 ·
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date