According to the law firm press release, Super Micro Computer develops and provides high performance server solutions based on modular and open-standard architecture. The company offers a range of server, storage, blade, workstation, and full rack solutions, as well as networking devices, server management software, and technology support and services. It also provides a range of application optimized server solutions, including rackmount and blade server systems; and server subsystems and accessories comprising server boards, and chassis and power supplies, as well as other system accessories, including microprocessors, and memory and disc drives. The company offers its products to data center, cloud computing, enterprise IT, big data, high performance computing, and embedded markets.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company improperly recorded expenses in its financial reports; (ii) as a result, the Company’s reported net income was misstated; (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal financial controls; and (iv) as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On August 31, 2015, post-market, Super Micro Computer announced that the Company “has determined that it is unable to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 within the prescribed time period without unreasonable effort or expense. [Super Micro Computer] recently discovered certain irregularities regarding certain marketing expenses and additional time is required for [the Company] to complete its investigation of the matter.”
On this news, shares of Super Micro Computer declined $2.58 per share, or 9.43%, to close at $24.77 on September 1, 2015.
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 1, 2016.
On September 29, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 1.