Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/01/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: July 18, 2019

According to the Complaint, Omnicell provides automation and business analytics software solutions for patient-centric medication and supply management to customers in the healthcare industry.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company recognized revenue for certain transactions before fulfilling its performance obligations; (2) that the Company engaged in improper accounting practices to meet revenue targets; (3) that the Company experienced weaker demand for new product lines than it had previously projected; (4) that, as a result, the Company would be required to write-off certain inventory; (5) that the Company misclassified certain expenses as capitalized expenditures; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: OMCL
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 #: 19-CV-04150
JUDGE: Hon. William Alsup
DATE FILED: 07/18/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/25/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/11/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available