Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/14/2017 (Other)

Filing Date: February 02, 2016

According to the law firm press release, Imprivata is an IT security company that provides authentication and access management technology solutions for the healthcare industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants materially misled the investing public about demand for the Company’s IT security offerings and its sales trends, thereby inflating the price of Imprivata common stock, by publicly issuing false and misleading statements and omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make defendants’ statements about the Company, its business and operations not misleading. According to the complaint, these material misstatements and omissions had the cause and effect of creating in the market an unrealistically positive assessment of Imprivata and its business, prospects and operations, thus causing Imprivata common stock to be overvalued and artificially inflated, and then, with the price of the common stock artificially inflated, certain Imprivata executives and insiders cashed in, selling more than $72 million worth of their personally held Imprivata stock at fraud-inflated prices.

On May 31, 2016, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 15.

This case was ordered dismissed on May 16, 2017.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: IMPR
Company Market: New York SE
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: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 16-CV-10160
JUDGE: Hon. Leo T. Sorokin
DATE FILED: 02/02/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/30/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/02/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Johnson & Weaver, LLP
  2. Law Office Of Alan L. Kovacs
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 16-CV-10160
JUDGE: Hon. Leo T. Sorokin
DATE FILED: 08/15/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/30/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/02/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Block & Leviton LLP
    155 Federal Street, Suite 1303, Block & Leviton LLP, MA 02110
    (617) 398-5600 (617) 507-6020 ·
  2. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016
    (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available