Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/22/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: September 21, 2020

According to the Complaint, Fluidigm Corporation manufactures and markets products and services that are used by researchers to study health and disease, identify biomarkers, and accelerate the development of therapies. The Company uses proprietary CyTOF and microfluidics technologies to develop its end-to-end 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 Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles; (2) that, as a result, Fluidigm’s revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (3) 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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FLDM
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 20-CV-06617
JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
DATE FILED: 09/21/2020
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/07/2019
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
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available