Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 11/14/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: November 24, 2014

According to the law firm press release, on May 6, 2014, FireEye announced its first quarter results, surprising investors and analysts. The Company’s $24.3 million in product revenue fell meaningfully short of analysts’ estimates of $31 million and reflected a move away from FireEye’s organic software business and towards service-oriented offerings which lacked the same potential for profitability. In reaction to these disclosures, FireEye closed at $28.65, down $8.48 per share. This 23% decline represented a market capitalization loss of over $1.25 billion.

The Complaint alleges the Company’s stock continued its precipitous decline, plummeting to close at a low of $25.76 on October 10, 2014, down 73.1% from its Class Period high of $95.63 on March 5, 2014. Notwithstanding the Company’s declining product revenue and the marked turn away from its organic software business, Defendants continuously touted FireEye’s organic and acquired growth as reasons for optimism and promising future results. Finally, on November 4, 2014, after the market closed for trading, the Company released disappointing third quarter results that missed analysts’ expectations, and further revealed the Company’s virtual abandonment of its core software product business model, resulting in a quarterly loss of $0.51 per share.

On May 1, 2015, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 29.

On November 14, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with leave to amend.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FEYE
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 #: 14-CV-05204
JUDGE: Hon. Edward J. Davila
DATE FILED: 11/24/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/02/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/04/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
    995 Old Eagle School Rd., Ste. 311, Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, PA 19087
    (484) 588-5516 (484) 450-2582 ·
  2. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (San Diego)
    Symphony Towers; 750 B Street, Suite 2770, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.239.4599 19.239.4599 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 14-CV-05204
JUDGE: Hon. Edward J. Davila
DATE FILED: 06/29/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/02/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/04/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
  2. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
No Document Title Filing Date