Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 11/16/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: December 16, 2016

According to the law firm press release, the filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing a large decline in high throughput sequencing instrument sales; (2) that the decline was negatively impacting the Company’s revenue; (3) that the Company lacked visibility into trends that could have a substantial impact on the Company’s financial results; (4) that, as such, the Company’s revenue guidance was unreliable and overstated; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about Illumina’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 30, 2017, the Court issued an Order Consolidating Cases and Appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. The Consolidated Cases shall be identified as: in re Illumina, Inc., Securities Litigation. On May 30, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.

On January 22, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ILMN
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 #: 16-CV-03044
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
DATE FILED: 12/16/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/26/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/10/2016
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: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-03044
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
DATE FILED: 05/30/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/26/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/10/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky (Los Angeles)
    445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor, Levi & Korsinsky (Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 985-7290 (202) 333-2121 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available