Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/23/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: March 06, 2019

According to the Complaint, Inogen is a medical technology company.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Inogen’s business metrics and financial prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Inogen had overstated the true size of the total addressable market (“TAM”) for its portable oxygen concentrators and had misstated the basis for its calculation of the TAM; (ii) Inogen had falsely attributed its sales growth to the strong sales acumen of its salesforce, when in reality it was due in large part to sales tactics designed to deceive its elderly customer base; (iii) the growth in Inogen’s domestic business-to-business sales to home medical equipment (“HME”) providers was inflated, unsustainable and was eroding direct-to-consumer sales; and (iv) very little of Inogen’s business was actually coming from the more stable Medicare market.

On May 20, 2019, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended Complaint on July 10.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: INGN
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 19-CV-01643
JUDGE: Hon. Christina A. Snyder
DATE FILED: 03/06/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/08/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/26/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Johnson Fistel, LLP (Marietta)
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 19-CV-01643
JUDGE: Hon. Christina A. Snyder
DATE FILED: 07/10/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/08/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/07/2019
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. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available