Lawsuit Overview
April 28, 2021 - A notice of appeal was filed.
March 31, 2021 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
August 14, 2020 - A motion to dismiss the corrected amended complaint was filed.
June 9, 2020 - A correction to the amended complaint was filed.
June 3, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
October 24, 2019 - The court granted the motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
August 13, 2019 - An investor in shares of Pluralsight, Inc. (NASDAQ: PS) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Pluralsight, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between August 2, 2018 and July 31, 2019. Pluralsight, Inc. completed its initial public offering (“IPO”) in May 2018, whereby it sold 23.8 million shares at a price of $15.00 per share. Less than a year later, Pluralsight completed a secondary public offering (“SPO”) on March 6, 2019, whereby it sold 15.6 million shares at a price of $29.25 per share, for gross proceeds of over $450 million.
On July 31, 2019, after the market closed, Pluralsight, Inc. reported billings for second quarter 2019 of $80.6 million, below the expected $89.1 million, due to certain “sales execution challenges.” Shares of Pluralsight, Inc. (NASDAQ: PS) declined to as low as $15.48 per share on August 15, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Pluralsight, Inc. (NASDAQ: PS) common shares between August 2, 2018 and July 31, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between August 2, 2018 and July 31, 2019, the Pluralsight, Inc. failed to disclose that it was experiencing substantial delays in hiring and properly training the salesforce necessary to meet its lofty billing projections. In addition, Pluralsight, Inc. allegedly knew at the time of the SPO that it was behind schedule onboarding new sales representatives, which was hurting the Company’s sales execution and preventing Pluralsight from meeting its high growth projections. Instead of disclosing such facts at the time of the SPO, and to cash-out at inflated prices, Defendants intentionally obscured and omitted this pertinent information from investors.