Lawsuit Overview
October 18, 2019 - The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs were given leave to amend the complaint.
January 29, 2019 - A motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint was filed.
November 30, 2018 - A consolidated amended complaint was filed.
June 21, 2018 - An investor in shares of Restoration Robotics Inc (NASDAQ: HAIR) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Restoration Robotics Inc in connection with the Initial Public Offering (“IPO”).
San Jose, CA based Restoration Robotics Inc, a medical device company, develops and commercializes image-guided robotic systems in the United States and internationally. On or about, October 12, 2017, Restoration Robotics Inc sold 3,575,000 million shares of stock in its initial public stock offering (the IPO ), at $7 a share raising 25,025,000 in new capital.
On March 5, 2018, Restoration Robotics Inc announced its finical results for the fourth quarter and full year 2017. Restoration Robotics Inc reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $15.6 million in 2016 to $21.29 million in 2017 and that its Net loss declined from $21.84 million in 2016 to $17.84 million in 2017.
Shares of Restoration Robotics Inc (NASDAQ: HAIR) reached $7.72 per share on March 21, 2018.
On March 14, 2018, Restoration Robotics Inc reported its first quarter 2018 financial results. Restoration Robotics Inc reported that its first quarter Revenue declined from $5.475 million in 2017 to $5.005 million in 2018 and that its first quarter Net Loss increased from $5.159 million in 2017 to $7.431 million in 2018.
Shares of Restoration Robotics Inc (NASDAQ: HAIR) declined to as low as $3.16 per share on May 18, 2018.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that that Restoration Robotics Inc negligently issued untrue statements of material facts in, and omitted to state material facts required to be stated from, the Offering Materials issued in connection with the IPO and that a result of the materially misleading Offering Materials, the Company’s stock price was artificially inflated at the time of the IPO.