Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 06/05/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: November 13, 2019

According to the Complaint, Plantronics designs, manufactures, and markets integrated communications and collaboration solutions such as headsets, Open SIP desktop phones, audio and videoconferencing, and cloud management and analytics software solutions.

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 had engaged in channel stuffing to artificially boost sales; (2) that the Company’s internal control over inventory levels was not effective; (3) that the Company had not adequately monitored inventory levels ahead of multiple product launches, where the new models would displace demand for aging products; and (4) 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.

On February 13, 2020, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on June 5.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PLT
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-07481
JUDGE: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
DATE FILED: 11/13/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/02/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/05/2019
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-07481
JUDGE: Hon. Jon S. Tigar
DATE FILED: 06/05/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/07/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/05/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New New York)
  2. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (Berkeley)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available