Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/13/2017 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: September 16, 2016

According to the law firm press release, Polaris, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers, manufactures, and markets off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, motorcycles, and on-road vehicles in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and Mexico.

On July 23, 2015, Polaris issued a recall for the Company’s model-year 2016 Youth RZR off-highway vehicle, citing fire hazards. Three other recalls of the Company’s RZR vehicles followed—in October 2015, December 2015, and April 2016—affecting more than 160,000 RZR vehicles of various model years.

Nevertheless, Polaris consistently advised investors that the Company expected full year 2016 net income to be at least $6.00 per diluted share. On January 26, 2016, Polaris issued a press release reporting full-year guidance in the range of $6.20 to $6.80 per diluted share; on April 21, 2016, Polaris issued a press release maintaining the same guidance estimate; and on July 20, 2016, Polaris issued a press release only slightly lowering and narrowing its guidance range to $6.00 to $6.30 per diluted share.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was unable to sufficiently validate the initially identified repair for certain of its recalled RZR vehicles; (ii) as a result, the Company would ultimately need to implement a more complex and expensive repair solution; (iii) the financial impact of RZR vehicle recalls was therefore greater than the Company had disclosed to investors; (iv) consequently, the Company had overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Polaris’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 12, 2016, pre-market, Polaris issued a press release announcing that the Company was lowering its full-year 2016 earnings guidance to the range of $3.30 to $3.80 per diluted share. The Company attributed the lowered guidance to the impact of RZR thermal-related problems, citing, in part, the Company’s inability “to sufficiently validate the initially identified RZR Turbo recall repair, necessitating a more complex and expensive repair solution.”

On this news, Polaris stock fell $4.05, or 5.01%, to close at $76.79 on September 12, 2016.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Auto & Truck Manufacturers
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PII
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. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 16-CV-03108
JUDGE: Hon. Wilhelmina M. Wright
DATE FILED: 09/16/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/26/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/11/2016
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. Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
    100 Washington Avenue S. Suite 2200, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., MN 55401
    612.339.6900 612.339.6900 ·
  3. 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: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 16-CV-03108
JUDGE: Hon. Wilhelmina M. Wright
DATE FILED: 03/14/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/20/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/11/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Hellmuth & Johnson, P.A.
    10400 Viking Dr. Suite 560, Hellmuth & Johnson, P.A., MN 55344
    952.941.4005 952.941.2337 ·
  2. 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