According to the Complaint, Domo Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States that purportedly digitally connects everyone from the chief executive officer to the frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights, and allowing them to manage business from smartphones.

On June 1, 2018, Domo filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after amendment, was declared effective by the SEC on June 28, 2018.

On June 29, 2018, Domo filed a prospectus in connection with the IPO on Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement. On or around June 29, 2018, pursuant to the IPO, Domo’s Class B common stock began trading on the NASDAQ.

On July 3, 2018, Domo closed the IPO, in which the Company issued and sold 10,580,000 shares of Class B common stock at $21.00 per share for aggregate net proceeds of $202.5 million, after deducting underwriters’ discounts and offering expenses payable by the Company.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations and compliance policies. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Domo was experiencing weakness in its enterprise and international businesses; (ii) Domo’s billings growth had dramatically slowed; (iii) all of the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company’s financial results; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein and the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 7, 2020, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on May 22. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on July 9. On December 15, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.