Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/23/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: March 02, 2020

According to the Complaint, Align Technology, Inc. is a medical device company that designs, manufactures, and markets devices to treat misaligned teeth. The Company’s principal products are the Invisalign clear dental aligners and the iTero® (“iTero”) intraoral scanners, which are used to create digital imagery of patients’ teeth for the purposes of diagnosing misalignment and fitting Invisalign aligners.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made numerous materially misleading statements emphasizing the growth and performance of the Company’s operations in China, the Company’s most valuable market after the United States; these statements included describing the “huge market opportunity” and “tremendous growth . . . in China, in particular,” and characterizing the Company’s increasing presence in China as “a big hit with our Chinese customers.” The Complaint alleges these and other statements were materially false and misleading because they exaggerated the Company’s performance in China and omitted to disclose material declines in Chinese demand for the Company’s products and the deteriorating sentiment of consumers in China towards the Company’s products.

On April 28, 2020, this case was transferred to the Northern District of California. The Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel on May 20. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on August 4.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Medical Equipment & Supplies
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ALGN
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 20-CV-01822
JUDGE: Hon. John G. Koeltl
DATE FILED: 03/02/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/24/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/24/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
  2. VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C.
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 20-CV-02897
JUDGE: Hon. John G. Koeltl
DATE FILED: 08/04/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/25/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/24/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP (Oakland)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available