According to the law firm press release, SanDisk designs, develops and manufactures “data storage solutions.” The Company’s products include solid state drives, embedded products, removable cards, universal serial bus (“USB”) drives, wireless media drives, and digital media players.
On January 12, 2015, SanDisk provided preliminary revenue results for its fiscal fourth quarter. The Company estimated that, for the quarter, its total revenue would be “approximately $1.73 billion, lower than the previously forecasted revenue range of $1.80 billion to $1.85 billion.” According to the Company, the lower revenue result was “primarily due to weaker than expected sales of retail and iNAND products.” Following this news, shares of the Company’s stock declined $13.47 per share, or over 13.8%, to close on January 12, 2015 at $83.57 per share.
Finally, on March 26, 2015, the Company announced that it expected to report revenue for the fiscal first quarter of “approximately $1.3 billion, depending on final sell-through results, compared to the previously forecasted revenue range of $1.40 billion to $1.45 billion.” In discussing its revenue estimation for the quarter, the Company stated that “[t]he change in first quarter revenue estimate is primarily due to certain product qualification delays, lower than expected sales of enterprise products and lower pricing in some areas of the business. The Company expects continued impact to its 2015 financial results from these factors as well as the previously identified supply challenges, and now forecasts 2015 revenue to be lower than the previous guidance.” Additionally, the Company withdrew its financial forecasts for the quarter and the remainder of the year. Following this news, shares of the Company’s stock declined an additional $14.98 per share, or over 18.4%, to close on March 26, 2015 at $66.20 per share.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) the Company was experiencing production delays with certain of its products; (2) the Company was experiencing lower than expected sales; (3) the Company was suffering from a lower pricing environment in certain business areas; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants’ statements about the Company’s financial wellbeing and future business prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis when made.
On July 15, 2015, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on August 28.
On January 22, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint.
On February 22, 2016, the Court granted a motion appointing new Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on March 23.
On June 24, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed on July 15.