According to the law firm press release, InvenSense, Inc. designs, develops, markets and sells Micro Electro Mechanical Systems ("MEMS") sensors, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes and microphones for consumer electronics. The Company targets sales of its products to manufacturers of smartphones and tablets, console and portable video gaming devices, and other types of consumer electronics.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants concealed the adverse effects the Company would experience as a result of its agreement with Apple to supply sensors for the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus at heavily discounted prices. The low prices charged had negatively impacted, and would continue to negatively impact, InvenSense's margins. Instead of revealing the Company's true financial condition and prospects, Defendants concealed these adverse facts from investors and chose to issue strong guidance. As a result of Defendants' false and misleading statements and/or omissions, InvenSense common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $25.85 per share, allowing certain of the Company's insiders to sell their personally held stock at artificially inflated prices for aggregate proceeds of over $5.3 million.
On October 28, 2014, the Company announced disappointing financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2015, ended Sept. 28, 2014. Net revenue for the second quarter fiscal 2015 was $90.2 million, up 35 percent from $66.7 million for the first quarter fiscal 2015. Gross margin determined in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for the second quarter of fiscal 2015 was 35 percent, compared with 47 percent for the first quarter of fiscal 2015 included stock-based compensation and related payroll taxes, and amortization of acquisition intangibles.
On this news, shares of InvenSense fell $5.10 per share, or more than 23.74%, to $16.08 per share on October 29, 2014.
On April 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated Complaint on May 26. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated Complaint on June 25. On March 28, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was given leave to amend the Complaint. On April 18, Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on May 5. On April 12, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The case was dismissed with prejudice.
