Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/12/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 18, 2017

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges defendants in connection with Tintri’s IPO made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tintri experienced distraction, disruption, and sales attrition during its IPO; and (2) as a result, defendants’ statements about Tintri’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On October 3, 2017, this case was transferred to the Northern District of California.

On December 13, 2017, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on February 2, 2018.

On July 10, issuer Defendant filed a Notice of Filing of Petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. On July 12, the Court issued an Order staying all claims against Defendant Tintri, Inc. due to Tintri's voluntary filing of a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TNTR
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 #: 17-CV-06857
JUDGE: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II
DATE FILED: 09/18/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/30/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/18/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 17-CV-05714
JUDGE: Hon. Otis D. Wright, II
DATE FILED: 02/02/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/30/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/18/2017
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. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Washington DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Washington DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4600 ·
  3. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available