Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/23/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: March 30, 2015

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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Peripherals
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SNDK
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 #: 15-CV-01455
JUDGE: Hon. Vince Chhabria
DATE FILED: 03/30/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/16/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/25/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-01455
JUDGE: Hon. Vince Chhabria
DATE FILED: 07/15/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/16/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/15/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (New York)
    88 Pine Street, 14th Floor, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (New York), NY 10022
    212.838.7797 212.838.7797 ·
  2. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
  3. Scott + Scott LLP (NY)
    405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor, The Chrysler Building, Scott + Scott LLP (NY), NY 10174
    (212) 223-6444 (212) 223-6444 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date