Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 05/09/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: May 08, 2018

According to the Complaint, Flex purportedly provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply chain
services and solutions.

On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff's law firm issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. According to the law firm press release, on April 26, 2018, Flex issued a press release disclosing allegations by a former employee that the Company improperly accounted for obligations in a customer contract and certain related reserves. The Company further announced that its Audit Committee was undertaking an investigation of the matter with the assistance of independent outside counsel. On this news, Flex’s share price fell $3.61, or 21.7%, to close at $13.03 per share on April 27, 2018, thereby injuring investors.

The Complaint filed in this class action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting were materially weak and deficient; (2) that the Company had improperly accounted for obligations in a customer contract and certain related reserves; and, (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial statements and Defendants’ statements about Flex’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Hardware
Headquarters: Singapore

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FLEX
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-02706
JUDGE: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
DATE FILED: 05/08/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/26/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/26/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
  2. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
No Document Title Filing Date