On or around 03/10/2020 (Date of last review)
Filing Date: July 02, 2019
According to the Complaint, Diebold provides connected commerce services, software and technology to enable millions of transactions each day.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was experiencing delays in systems rollouts as well as a longer customer decision-making process and order-to-revenue conversion cycle; (ii) the foregoing issues were negatively impacting the Company’s services business and operations; and (iii) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On October 30, 2019, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated Complaint on January 10, 2020.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated
Industry: Software & Programming
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: DBD
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.
First Identified Complaint
Selwyn Karp, et al. v. Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated, et al.