Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/10/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 23, 2015

According to the law firm press release, LeapFrog is a developer of educational entertainment for children. The Company’s product portfolio consists of multimedia learning platforms and related content, and learning toys. The Company has developed a number of learning platforms, including the LeapPad family of learning tablets, the Leapster family of handheld learning game systems, and the LeapReader reading and writing systems. The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was experiencing a decline in consumer demand; (2) the launch and shipment of the Company’s new LeapTV video game system were delayed by developmental issues; (3) retailers were overstocked with the Company’s LeapPad products; (4) as a result, the Company lacked a reasonable basis for its financial guidance; and (5), as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 22, 2015, after the close of trading, LeapFrog announced preliminary financial results for its 2014 fiscal third quarter. These financial results were significantly below the Company’s stated expectations and financial guidance. According to the Company, LeapFrog’s disappointing sales results were related to decreased demand for its products and development issues with the Company’s LeapTV educational video game system. Following this news, shares of LeapFrog declined nearly 35%, to close on January 23, 2015, at $2.55 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

On August 2, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to replead. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 20.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Personal & Household Products
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LF
Company Market: New York SE
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 #: 15-CV-00347
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 01/23/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/05/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/22/2015
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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-00347
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 09/20/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/05/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/11/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Motley Rice LLC (Mount Pleasant)
    28 Bridgeside Boulevard, Motley Rice LLC (Mount Pleasant), SC 29464
    843.216.9000 843.216.9450 · inquiry@motleyrice.com
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (New SF Office)
    One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (New SF Office), CA 94104
    (415) 288-4545 (415) 288-4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date