Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/10/2017 (Other)

Filing Date: February 29, 2016

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, cash position, prospects, and internal controls. Specifically, in November 2015, Defendants: (i) misrepresented that Hortonworks had sufficient cash and cash equivalents to fund 12 months of working capital and capital expenditure needs; (ii) failed to disclose that Hortonworks in actuality lacked adequate cash to meet those working capital and capital expenditure requirements over that period of time; (iii) failed to disclose that, as a result, Defendants were contemplating a significant offering to fund its operations; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On Friday, January 15, 2016, post-market, Hortonworks announced it had retained Goldman Sachs to raise $100 million in a secondary offering. Analysts expressed surprise, with one stating, “We believe it will be incumbent on HDP during its roadshow to show why this offering, announced in this way, at this time, should not be interpreted as evidence of serious difficulty.”

On this news, Hortonworks’s stock fell $6.13, or nearly 37%, to close at $10.44 on January 19, 2016, the next trading day.

On June 1, 2016, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 28.

On March 27, 2017, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. The parties entered into a revised Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on May 26. On October 10, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement and entered Final Judgment.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HDP
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-00980
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 02/29/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/04/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/15/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (New York)
    60 East 42nd Street - Suite 4600, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (New York), NY 10165
    212.697.6484 212.697.7296 · info@bgandg.com
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-00980
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 07/28/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/05/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/15/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date