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.

On December 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on February 19, 2021. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on April 5. On August 4, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was given leave to amend the Complaint.

Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint on September 14, 2021. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the second amended Complaint on October 29. On February 14, 2022, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The case was dismissed with prejudice. Lead Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the Court's Dismissal Order on March 15. On February 21, 2023, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's Dismissal Order.