Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/05/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: April 02, 2015

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company had overstated its ability to monetize its user base and effectively integrate its distribution channels; (2) that, as a result, the Company had to lower its earnings guidance; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 13, 2015, after the market closed, the Company lowered its revenue guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014 to be between USD $52.7 million and $53.0 million, as compared to the previously announced revenue guidance of between $62.9 million and $66.1 million. According to the Company, the revised guidance reflected the delay of a popular game, launched on one of the Company distribution platforms, and lower than expected revenues from another game being launched simultaneously as other hit games on the same distribution platform. On this news, ADS of iDreamSky declined $3.60 per share, over 33%, during to close on March 16, 2015 at $7.22 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on March 25, 2016.

On February 22, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motions to dismiss.

On April 7, 2017, this case was Ordered stayed pending mediation.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DSKY
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 15-CV-02514
JUDGE: Hon. Oetken
DATE FILED: 04/02/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/08/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/13/2015
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 15-CV-02514
JUDGE: Hon. Oetken
DATE FILED: 03/25/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/07/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/13/2015
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. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016
    (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827 ·
  3. WeissLaw LLP
    551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, WeissLaw LLP, NY 10176
    212.682.3025 212.682-3010 · info@wllawny.com
No Document Title Filing Date