Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/05/2020 (Other)

Filing Date: November 05, 2018

According to the Complaint, Apogee Enterprises, Inc. ("Apogee" or the Company) purports to be an industry leader in architectural products and services. It operates nine companies, 15 fabrication and manufacturing locations in the United States, and nine international locations. The Company claims to generate most of its revenue through its architectural glass, metal and installation businesses.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Apogee lacked the required labor force in place to ramp-up its production; (ii) Apogee was unable to hire, train and retain new employees; (iii) Apogee’s productivity and margins would be negatively impacted; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On February 26, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on April 26. On June 28, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint. The Court issued an Order on March 25, 2020, granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to amend the Complaint. Plaintiffs filed to provide a proposed amended pleading, and on May 5, the Court entered Judgment in favor of the Defendants.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Constr. - Supplies & Fixtures
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: APOG
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: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 18-CV-03097
JUDGE: Hon. Nancy E. Brasel
DATE FILED: 11/05/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/28/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/17/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
  2. Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield Attorneys at Law
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Minnesota
DOCKET #: 18-CV-03097
JUDGE: Hon. Nancy E. Brasel
DATE FILED: 04/26/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/01/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/10/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Christiansen & Dehner, P.A.
  2. Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
  4. Zimmerman Reed, LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available