Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 02/18/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: October 22, 2019

According to the Complaint, Pareteum purports to operate a communications cloud services platform in Europe and internationally. The Company’s platform purports to provide mobility, messaging, and security services and applications, with a single-sign-on, application program interface (API), and software development suite.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Pareteum improperly and inaccurately recognized revenue for certain customer transactions; (2) Pareteum’s financial statements for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2018 and quarters of ending March 31, 2019 and June 30, 2019 were false and could not be relied on; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on January 7, 2020. A related case continues in the Southern District of New York under Docket 19-CV-09767.

On January 10, 2020, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Communications Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: TEUM
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: E.D. New York
DOCKET #: 19-CV-05949
JUDGE: Hon. Margo K. Brodie
DATE FILED: 10/22/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/12/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/21/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (NY)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 19-CV-09767
JUDGE: Hon. Margo K. Brodie
DATE FILED: 10/22/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/12/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/21/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (NY)
    230 Park Ave., Suite 530, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (NY), NY 10168
    (212) 682-5340 (212) 884-0988 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available