Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/30/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: June 12, 2015

According to the law firm press release, 3D Systems makes content-to-print solutions ? 3D printers, materials, and on-demand custom parts services. It also provides content creation and design productivity software platforms. Its products are most often used in commercial settings like the aerospace/defense, healthcare, and automotive industries, as well as consumer applications and hobbies.

The complaint alleges that Defendants drove up 3D’s stock price by issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s (i) ability to increase the capacity of its metal printing business; (ii) demand for its consumer products; (iii) the value of multiple companies it was acquiring; and (iv) expected earnings. The truth was finally revealed on October 22, 2014, when the Company surprised the market by announcing disappointing preliminary Q3 results and guided lower full year revenue and earnings. In a press release, the Company blamed its disappointing results on capacity constraints for its direct metal printers. On this news, 3D shares plummeted over 15% on high volume.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on November 30, 2015. This was followed by the filing of an amended complaint on December 9.

On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Peripherals
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DDD
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: D. South Carolina
DOCKET #: 15-CV-02393
JUDGE: Hon. Mary G Lewis
DATE FILED: 06/12/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/29/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/22/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman LLC (Barnwell)
    1730 Jackson Street, Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman LLC (Barnwell), SC 29812
    803.341.7850 803.541.9625 · inquiry@rpwb.com
  2. 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
COURT: D. South Carolina
DOCKET #: 15-CV-02393
JUDGE: Hon. Mary G Lewis
DATE FILED: 12/09/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/29/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/05/2015
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 (Boca Raton)
    120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Boca Raton), FL 33432
    561.750.3000 561.750.3364 ·
No Document Title Filing Date