Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 04/22/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: December 18, 2019

According to the Complaint, Green Dot identifies itself as a financial technology leader and bank holding company with a mission to “reinvent banking for the masses.” The Company operates a platform referred to as “Banking as a Service” or “BaaS” to provide banking and financial services products to consumers under brand names such as Green Dot, GoBank and RapidPay.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Green Dot's strategy to attract "high-value" long-term customers was at the expense of "one and done" customers; (2) Green Dot's "one and done" customers represented a significant source of revenues in its legacy segment; (3) consequently, Green Dot's strategy was self-sabotaging; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about its business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Financial
Industry: Misc. Financial Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: GDOT
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 19-CV-10701
JUDGE: Hon. Dean D. Pregerson
DATE FILED: 12/18/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/09/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/07/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP (SF)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available