Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/07/2016 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: September 28, 2015

According to the law firm press release, QLogic designs and supplies server and storage networking infrastructure products that provide, enhance, and manage computer data communication.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was being adversely impacted by lower than expected demand due to weakness in its enterprise server and storage markets; (2) the Company was being negatively impacted by operational issues including an inventory build-up at a major OEM customer; (3) as such, the Company’s financial results were being negatively impacted; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements about its business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

On July 30, 2015, QLogic revealed that its financial results had been adversely impacted by “operational issues including an inventory build-up primarily at a major OEM customer.” On this news, the company’s shares fell $2.51 per share, over 22%, to close at $8.87 per share on July 31, 2015.

On September 29, 2015, this case was transferred intra-district to the Southern Division.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on March 4, 2016.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: QLGC
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-07617
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 09/28/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/30/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/30/2015
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. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
No Document Title Filing Date