Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/13/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: December 06, 2017

According to the law firm press release, PayPal operates as a technology platform company that provides online payment systems through a variety of services on behalf of consumers and merchants. On February 14, 2017, PayPal announced an agreement to purchase TIO Networks Corp. (“TIO”) for $233 million (the “TIO Acquisition”). TIO is a bill-pay management company that processed roughly $7 billion in bill payments on behalf of 14 million customers in 2016. On July 18, 2017, PayPal announced the completion of the TIO Acquisition.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) TIO’s data security program was inadequate to safeguard the personally identifiable information of its users; (ii) the foregoing vulnerabilities threatened continued operation of TIO’s platform; (iii) PayPal’s revenues derived from its TIO services were thus unsustainable; (iv) consequently, PayPal had overstated the benefits of the TIO Acquisition; and (v) as a result, PayPal’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 16, 2018, the Court issued an Order appointing interim Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. Interim Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint on June 13.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PYPL
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-06956
JUDGE: Hon. Edward M. Chen
DATE FILED: 12/06/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/14/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/01/2017
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. Pomerantz LLP (Beverly Hills)
    468 North Cameden Drive, Pomerantz LLP (Beverly Hills)
    (818) 532-6499 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 17-CV-06956
JUDGE: Hon. Edward M. Chen
DATE FILED: 06/13/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/10/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/01/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (Chicago)
    10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 , Pomerantz LLP (Chicago), IL 60603
    312-377-1181 312-377-1184 ·
  2. 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