Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/31/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: February 19, 2020

According to the Complaint, HP Inc. is a global provider of personal computers, printers and related supplies, solutions, and services.

The claims alleged in this case arise from Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions concerning HP's fundamental changes to its Supplies business strategy, which the Company called its "four-box model." For several years, the Company measured its Supplies business through this model.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants falsely emphasized that the four-box model was an accurate, reliable tool to determine demand and revenue in the Company's Supplies business, and reassured investors that, based on the four-box model, HP had a "clear line of sight to supply stabilization." Defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements to investors about the reliability of the Company's four-box model and the revenue growth of the Supplies business, touting their "continued confidence in the predictive value of the four box model" and stating that the Company's "Supplies revenue is in line with the expectations that we set, and that our 4-box model continues to drive predictability." As a result of Defendants' alleged misrepresentations, shares of HP's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On May 20, 2020, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint on July 20.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Computer Hardware
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HPQ
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 #: 20-CV-01260
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 02/19/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/23/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/03/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New New York)
  2. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 20-CV-01260
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 07/20/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/23/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/03/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP (LA)
  2. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available