Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 08/17/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Personal & Household Products
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

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.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 18-CV-00193
JUDGE: Hon. Edward M. Chen
DATE FILED: 01/09/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/02/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/05/2018
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 #: 18-CV-00193
JUDGE: Hon. Edward M. Chen
DATE FILED: 06/18/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/02/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/05/2018
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
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available