Lawsuit Overview
April 28, 2021 - The plaintiffs did not amend the complaint. The case was dismissed.
March 30, 2021 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs were given leave to amend the complaint.
March 10, 2020 - A motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was filed.
January 10, 2020 - A consolidated complaint was filed.
July 2, 2019 - An investor in shares of Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (NYSE: DBD) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between May 4, 2017 and July 4, 2017. On July 5, 2017, Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated issued a announcement titled “Diebold Nixdorf Adjusts 2017 Financial Outlook” (the “July 2017 Press Release”). The announcement disclosed that Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated expected a wider net loss than indicated in its prior guidance for fiscal 2017, from a range of $50 to $75 million to a range of $110 to $125 million net loss. Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated attributed the lowered expectations to a delay in systems rollouts as well as a longer customer decision-making process and order-to-revenue conversion cycle. Shares of Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (NYSE: DBD) declined from $31.85 per share in February 2017 to as low as $16.25 per share in late 2017. On July 2, 2019, Shares of Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (NYSE: DBD) closed at $9.31 per share. According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated (NYSE: DBD) common shares between May 4, 2017 and July 4, 2017, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between May 4, 2017 and July 4, 2017, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing delays in systems rollouts as well as a longer customer decision-making process and order-to-revenue conversion cycle, that the foregoing issues were negatively impacting the Company’s services business and operations, and that as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.