On or around 08/02/2019 (Date of last review)
Filing Date: December 21, 2018
According to the Complaint, NVIDIA designs, develops, and markets graphics processing units ("GPUs") and related software. Although traditionally used in connection with computer gaming, demand for the Company's GPUs surged as NVIDIA's GPUs became widely used in connection with cryptocurrencies. Given the volatility in the cryptocurrency market, the Company's ability to adapt to the ever-changing cryptocurrency landscape was critical to investors.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants assured investors that the Company followed the market closely and could adjust to rapid changes in the cryptocurrency markets. Even as analysts increasingly began to question the Company's ability to manage inventory in the face of an uncertain cryptocurrency market, Defendants touted that NVIDIA and its executives are "masters at managing our channel, and we understand the channel very well." NVIDIA also repeatedly assured investors that surging demand for GPUs among cryptocurrency miners would not have a negative impact on the Company because of strong demand for GPUs by NVIDIA's core customer base of computer gamers. As a result of these misrepresentations, NVIDIA shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.
On March 4, 2019, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases. On May 2, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated Complaint on June 21.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: NVIDIA Corporation
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: NVDA
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
Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, et al. v. NVIDIA Corporation, et al.
Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws
Amended Stipulation and Order to Consolidate Related Cases, Extend Defendants' Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Operative Complaint, Vacate the Initial Case Management Conference, and Reset all Related Deadlines
Order Granting Defendants' Administrative Motion to Relate and Consolidate Cases and to Appoint Co-Lead Counsel
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Order Granting E. Öhman J:or Fonder AB and Stichting Pensioenfonds PGB's Motion Re: Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Lead Counsel
In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 18-CV-07669
JUDGE: Hon. Haywood S Gilliam, Jr.
DATE FILED: 06/21/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/10/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/14/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New New York) 1251 Avenue of the Americas, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New New York), NY 10020 (212) 554-1400 (212) 554-1448 ·