Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/21/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: June 27, 2018

According to the Complaint, Gogo Inc. ("Gogo" or the "Company"), through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation industry in the United States and
internationally.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Gogo’s 2Ku antenna had more reliability issues than the public was led to believe; (2) Gogo’s 2Ku antennas required costly installation and remediation challenges or required replacement due to deicing fluids from planes infiltrating the 2Ku system as well as manufacturing and software issues; (3) consequently, Gogo would not be able to meet its previously issued 2018 guidance; and (4) as a result, the company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 10, 2018, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on December 10. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on February 8, 2019. On October 16, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend the Complaint. On December 20, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint. Lead Plaintiff filed a third amended Complaint on July 22, 2020.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: GOGO
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. Illinois
DOCKET #: 18-CV-04473
JUDGE: Hon. Jorge L. Alonso
DATE FILED: 06/27/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/27/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/07/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York)
  2. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (Chicago)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Illinois
DOCKET #: 18-CV-04473
JUDGE: Hon. Jorge L. Alonso
DATE FILED: 07/22/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/27/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/04/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
  2. Labaton Sucharow LLP
  3. Levi & Korsinsky LLP (DC)
  4. Lubin Austermuehle
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available