Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/19/2017 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: January 13, 2016

According to the law firm press release, the complaint charges GoPro and certain of its officers with violations of the federal securities laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing weak sales of its HERO line of cameras throughout the Class Period; (2) that the Company was experiencing weak HERO4 Session sales at the time the third Quarter guidance was announced; (3) that the Company’s third quarter 2015 guidance was based on the assumption that GoPro would be able to sell a significant additional amount of HERO4 Session cameras; (4) that the Company’s third and fourth quarter 2015 guidance was inflated and unrealistic; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about GoPro’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On April 28, 2016, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on June 21.

An amended complaint was filed on July 28.

On May 1, 2017, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, with leave to amend. Plaintiffs declined to amend, thus this case was dismissed with prejudice on June 19.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Photography
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: GPRO
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-00232
JUDGE: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
DATE FILED: 01/13/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/21/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/13/2016
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-00232
JUDGE: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
DATE FILED: 07/28/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/21/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/13/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date