On or around 06/24/2019 (Court's order of dismissal)
Filing Date: January 09, 2018
According to the Complaint, GoPro develops and sells mountable and wearable cameras, and accessories in the United States and internationally. GoPro’s product offerings include Karma, a premium remote controlled drone that retails for $799.
On November 1, 2017, during aftermarket hours, GoPro held a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss its financial results for the period ended September 30, 2017. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the market prospects for Karma were untenable due to margin challenges in an extremely competitive aerial market and a hostile regulatory environment in Europe and the United States; and (2) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On April 20, 2018, the Court issued an Order conditionally appointing Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. Final approval of the Co-Lead Plaintiffs was granted on April 26. On May 8, one of the Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended Complaint on June 18. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended Complaint on August 17. On March 15, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend the Complaint. On April 26, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Intention Not to File an amended Complaint. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice on June 24.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: GoPro, Inc.
Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Personal & Household Products
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: GPRO
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.