Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 04/21/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: September 19, 2019

According to the Complaint, Slack Technologies, Inc. offers a business technology platform that allows users to share and aggregate information from other software, take action on notifications, and advance workflows in a multitude of third-party applications.

In June 2019, Slack went public through the Offering of its Class A common stock with a reference price of $26.00.

The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement filed with the SEC was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company’s Slack Platform was susceptible to recurring service-level disruptions; (2) that such disruptions were increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to a larger user base; (3) that the Company provides credits even if a customer was not specifically affected by service-level disruptions; (4) that, as a result, any service-level disruptions would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial results; and (5) 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.

Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on January 6, 2020. On January 8, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on January 21. On April 21, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Lead Plaintiff was given leave to amend the Complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: WORK
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-05857
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 09/19/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/20/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/19/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
  2. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 19-CV-05857
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 01/06/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/20/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/19/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bragar, Wexler, Eagel & Morgenstern, L.L.P.
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available