Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/21/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: July 20, 2017

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s end-user demand, channel inventory, and growth prospects for its high-margin supplies business. Lexmark is a manufacturer of printers and related supplies, primarily ink cartridges. Lexmark sells its products to wholesale distributors and large retail chains in more than 90 countries around the world.

During the Class Period, Lexmark repeatedly touted the profitability and growth of its high-margin supplies business. However, Defendants’ Class Period statements pertaining to the Company’s profitability and growth prospects were materially false and misleading because Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) end-user demand and growth for the Company’s supplies business was deteriorating; (2) pricing increases were the primary driver of supplies revenue growth, not end-user demand; (3) customers in the supplies channel reacted by buying ahead of anticipated pricing increases; and as a result, (4) there was excessive inventory levels at its European wholesale distributors.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Hardware
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LXK
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 17-CV-05543
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Pauley, III
DATE FILED: 07/20/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/01/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/20/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
No Document Title Filing Date