Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 08/02/2019 (Ongoing 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 INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

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.
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 18-CV-07669
JUDGE: Hon. Haywood S Gilliam, Jr.
DATE FILED: 12/21/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/10/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/15/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego)
    12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
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:
  1. 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 ·
  2. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP (Pennsylvania)
    280 King of Prussia Road, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP (Pennsylvania), PA 19087
    610.667.7706 610.667.7706 · info@ktmc.com
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available