Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 07/29/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: October 06, 2018

According to the Complaint, Namaste Technologies Inc. ("Namaste" or the "Company") operates as a cannabis e-commerce company with e-commerce sites in 26 countries.

Plaintiff's law firm issued a press release on October 6, 2018, announcing the lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Namaste had sold its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary to Namaste executives; (2) consequently, Namaste did not sell its U.S. subsidiary in an arm’s length transaction; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ statements about the company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on December 26, 2018. A related case continues under Docket 18-CV-10830 in the Southern District of New York.

On January 22, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint on April 5. On July 29, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a Settlement in principle.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Specialty)
Headquarters: Canada

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NXTTF
Company Market: OTC-BB
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 18-CV-08616
JUDGE: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
DATE FILED: 10/06/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/29/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/04/2018
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 18-CV-10830
JUDGE: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
DATE FILED: 04/05/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/29/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/06/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (New York)
    60 East 42nd Street - Suite 4600, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (New York), NY 10165
    212.697.6484 212.697.7296 · info@bgandg.com
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available