Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/12/2019 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: September 11, 2019

According to the Complaint, Greenlane distributes e-cigarettes, vaporizers, and accessories through its subsidiaries. The Company also distributes premium products containing hemp-derived CBD.

In April 2019, Greenlane held its initial public offering (“IPO”) in which it sold more than 6 million common shares at $17.00 per share.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (1) that the City of San Francisco had introduced a major initiative to ban the sale of e-cigarette products across three major cities and prohibit the manufacture of products at the headquarters of Greenlane’s key partner, JUUL Labs; (2) that, if approved, the initiative would materially and adversely impact the Company’s financial results and prospects; and (3) 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: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Tobacco
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: GNLN
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: S.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 19-CV-81259
JUDGE: Hon. Roy K. Altman
DATE FILED: 09/11/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/18/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/11/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Desmond Law Firm, P.C.
  2. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
  3. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available