| Case Page

 | Case Page |

Case Page

 

Gogo Inc.

Case Summary

Gogo Inc. Securities Litigation

Case Summary

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/10/2018 (Ongoing 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.

Company & Securities Information

Defendant: Gogo Inc.

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.

First Identified Complaint

Ashley Pierrelouis, et al. v. Gogo Inc., et al.

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)
    350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York), NY 10118
    212.686.1060 212.202.3827 · lrosen@rosenlegal.com
  2. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (Chicago)
    55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (Chicago), IL 60603
    312.984.0000 312.984.0000 ·
First Identified Complaint (FIC) Filings:
No Document Title Filing Date
1 Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws 06/27/2018
2 U.S. District Court Civil Docket 10/10/2018
3 Order Appointing Maria Zingas and Daniel Rogers as Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Their Selection of Counsel 10/10/2018

Reference Complaint

—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available

Related District Court Filings

—Related District Court Filings Data is not available
 
 

Cases