Lawsuit Overview
January 6, 2021 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed.
March 20, 2020 - A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.
March 6, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
September 11, 2019 - An investor in shares of Greenlane Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: GNLN) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Greenlane Holdings, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made in connection with the Company’s April 2019 initial public offering (“IPO”).
Boca Raton, FL based Greenlane Holdings, Inc. distribute consumption accessories and vaporization products to wholesale and retail customers in the United States and Canada. Greenlane Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: GNLN) reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $88.25 million in 2017 to $178.93 million in 2018 and that its Net Income of $2.29 million in 2017 turned to Net Loss of $5.88 million in 2018. On April 23, 2019, Greenlane held its initial public offering (“IPO”), offering shares at $17.00.
On June 18, 2019, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the ban on the sale and distribution of e-cigarette products within the city. It also endorsed a ban on the manufacturing of e-cigarette products on city property.
Since the IPO, shares of Greenlane has traded as low as $5.39, a nearly 68% decline from the $17 per share IPO price.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Greenlane Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: GNLN) common shares, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that the Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state that the City of San Francisco had introduced a major initiative to ban the sale of e-cigarette products across three major cities and prohibit the manufacture of products at the headquarters of Greenlane’s key partner, JUUL Labs, that, if approved, the initiative would materially and adversely impact the Company’s financial results and prospects, and 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.