Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/29/2017 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: November 30, 2015

According to the law firm press release, Qualcomm is a global semiconductor company that designs, manufactures and markets worldwide digital communications products and services.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing weaker-than-expected sales of devices that included the Company’s products and, as a result, the Company’s statements about its business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. Upon disclosure of these issues the Company’s securities declined sharply in value, thereby damaging investors.

On July 22, 2015, after the market closed, Qualcomm issued a press release that reported its third-quarter 2015 results and lowered its sales and earnings forecasts due, in part, to weaker-than-expected original equipment manufacturer sales of devices that included the Company’s products. Qualcomm explained on the earnings call discussing these results that it had an inventory build-up of chips.

Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 29, 2016.

On October 20, 2017, the Court issued an Order partially granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: QCOM
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: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-02678
JUDGE: Hon. Michael M. Anello
DATE FILED: 11/30/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/06/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/22/2015
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
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-02678
JUDGE: Hon. Michael M. Anello
DATE FILED: 03/17/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/19/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/22/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Gadow Tyler PLLC
    511 E. Pearl Street, Gadow Tyler PLLC, MS 39201
    (601) 355-0654 (601) 510-9667 ·
  2. Johnson & Weaver, LLP
    110 West “A” Street, Suite 750, Johnson & Weaver, LLP, CA 92101
    619.230.0063 619.230.0063 · contactus@johnsonandweaver.com
  3. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP (California)
    580 California Street, Suite 1750, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP (California), CA 94104
    415.400.3000 415.400.3000 · info@ktmc.com
  4. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
No Document Title Filing Date