Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 11/02/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: November 01, 2018

According to the Complaint, Fitbit claims to be a technology company focused on health-related devices. The
Company’s products purportedly include wearable devices—health and fitness trackers and smartwatches—that enable users to view data about their daily activity, exercise, and sleep, in real-time.

The Complaint 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, the Complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was struggling to transition its mission and differentiate itself from Apple Inc. and other competitors; (2) that, as such, the Company was experiencing increased competition; (3) that, as a result, demand and sell-through for the Company’s existing and new products were being negatively impacted; (4) that, as a result, the Company’s sales and financial results were weakening, and growth was slowing; (5) that the Company’s financial guidance was overstated; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements during the Class Period about Fitbit’s business, operations, financial results and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Scientific & Technical Instr.
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FIT
Company Market: New York SE
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-06665
JUDGE: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
DATE FILED: 11/01/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/02/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/30/2017
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
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available