Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/07/2017 (Other)

Filing Date: October 09, 2015

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that (1) the platform migration to HPCC was not successful; (2) the platform migration to HPCC posed the risk of a negative impact on the Company’s financial performance; (3) as a result of the unsuccessful migration, the Company’s revenue for the second quarter of 2015 would be below expectations; and (4) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On August 15, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed on September 14.

On March 1, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Judgment was entered and this case was dismissed.

On March 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the above Order.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CCIH
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-07952
JUDGE: Hon. Christina A. Snyder
DATE FILED: 10/09/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/11/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/20/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-07952
JUDGE: Hon. Christina A. Snyder
DATE FILED: 09/14/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/27/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/20/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
    333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., CA 90071
    213.785.2610 213.226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date