Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/03/2019 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: February 17, 2018

According to the Complaint, on October 4, 2017, the Company announced it was changing its name from Bioptix, Inc. (“Bioptix”) to Riot Blockchain, Inc. ("Riot"), claiming this name change was in line with a shift in the Company’s direction. As Bioptix the Company focused on animal healthcare and veterinary products. As Riot, however, the Company was now going to focus on being a strategic investor and operator in the blockchain ecosystem.

According to the law firm press release, Defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Riot’s principle executive offices were not in Colorado, but rather in Florida in the same location as a large, influential shareholder, who had a previous working relationship with one of the Defendants; (2) Riot never intended to hold its Annual General Meetings scheduled for December 28, 2017 and February 1, 2018; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ statements about Riot’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On November 6, 2018, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated Complaint on January 15, 2019. On May 8, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended Complaint. On May 9, Lead Plaintiff corrected the consolidated amended Complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Consumer Financial Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RIOT
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: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 18-CV-02293
JUDGE: Hon. Freda L. Wolfson
DATE FILED: 02/17/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/13/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/15/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm (South Orange)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 18-CV-02293
JUDGE: Hon. Freda L. Wolfson
DATE FILED: 05/09/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/20/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/06/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC (Newark)
    Two Gateway Center - 12th Floor, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC (Newark), NJ 07102-5003
    973.623.3000 ·
  2. Motley Rice LLC (Mount Pleasant)
    28 Bridgeside Boulevard, Motley Rice LLC (Mount Pleasant), SC 29464
    843.216.9000 843.216.9450 · inquiry@motleyrice.com
  3. U.S. Market Advisors Law Group PLLC
    5335 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Ste. 440, U.S. Market Advisors Law Group PLLC, DC
    202.274.0237 202.274.0237 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available