Lawsuit Overview
March 29, 2021 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs were given leave to amend the complaint.
August 7, 2020 - A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.
June 5, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
November 13, 2019 - An investor in shares of Plantronics, Inc. (NYSE: PLT) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Plantronics, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between July 2, 2018 and November 5, 2019.
Santa Cruz, CA based Plantronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets various integrated communications and collaborations solutions for corporate customers, small businesses, and individuals worldwide. Plantronics, Inc. reported that its Total Revenue rose from $856.90 million for the 12 months period that ended on March 31, 2018 to over $1.67 billion for the 12 months period that ended on March 31, 2019 and that its Net Loss increased from $0.869 million to $135.56 million over those respective time periods.
On November 5, 2019, Plantronics, Inc s announced its second quarter 2020 results. Among other things, Plantronics, Inc decreased its earnings guidance, and disclosed its plan to reduce channel inventory by $65 million. Shares of Plantronics, Inc. (NYSE: PLT) declined from $82.28 per share in July 2018 to as low as $23.14 per share on November 6, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Plantronics, Inc. (NYSE: PLT) common shares between July 2, 2018 and November 5, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between July 2, 2018 and November 5, 2019, the defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company had engaged in channel stuffing to artificially boost sales, that the Company’s internal control over inventory levels was not effective, that the Company had not adequately monitored inventory levels ahead of multiple product launches, where the new models would displace demand for aging products; and (4) 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.