Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 08/20/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 22, 2019

According to the Complaint, Arlo provides smart connected devices that can purportedly monitor environments in real-time using its cloudbased platform. This is accomplished by using a Wi-Fi or cellular network Internet connection in the Americas, Europe, the Middle-East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific regions. By using Arlo’s cloud-based platform, consumers may engage in real-time with their families and businesses from any location with an internet connection. Arlo also offers Wi-Fi- and LTE-enabled cameras, advanced baby monitors, and smart security lights.

On August 6, 2018, Arlo filed its prospectus for its upcoming IPO with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. Arlo sold 11,747,250 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share in its IPO, for proceeds of approximately $167.4 million, net of underwriting discounts and commissions, purportedly to be used for general corporate purposes.

Arlo was a wholly-owned subsidiary of NETGEAR, Inc. before the IPO. NETGEAR offers products enabling networking, broadband access, and network connectivity. NETGEAR owned approximately 84.2% of the shares of Arlo’s outstanding common stock after the IPO.

On November 30, 2018, Arlo announced its “flagship wire-free security camera system” called Arlo Ultra (“Ultra”). The Company touted a “newly designed rechargeable battery” that would purportedly enable the Ultra product to provide 4K Ultra HD resolution with high dynamic range, color night vision, and advanced image processing.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. The Complaint alleges that, specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) there was a flaw and/or quality issue with Arlo’s newly designed battery for its Ultra camera systems; (ii) this flaw and/or quality issue with the Ultra battery could result in a shipping delay of Arlo’s Ultra product; (iii) such a shipping delay endangered Arlo’s chances of launching the Ultra product in time for the crucial holiday season; (iv) such a shipping delay would allow Arlo’s competitors to capitalize on the Ultra product’s missed launch, thereby increasing their own market share; (v) Arlo’s consumers had been experiencing battery drain issues and other battery-related issues in connection with recent firmware updates; (vi) because of the foregoing, Arlo’s fourth quarter 2018 results and consumer base would be negatively impacted; and (vii) as a result, Arlo’s Registration Statement was materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 6, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on June 7.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ARLO
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 #: 19-CV-00372
JUDGE: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
DATE FILED: 01/22/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/06/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/03/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 19-CV-00372
JUDGE: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
DATE FILED: 06/07/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/03/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/03/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Browne George Ross LLP
    101 California Street Suite 1225, Browne George Ross LLP, CA 94111
    415-391-7100 ·
  2. Keller Lenkner LLC
    150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570, Keller Lenkner LLC, IL 60606
    312.741.5222 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available