Lawsuit Overview
July 30, 2020 -The court issued an order staying the case pending resolution of the appeal.
July 23, 2020 - The court of appeals accepted the appeal.
June 15, 2020 - The defendants filed an appeal.
April 21, 2020 - The court granted in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiff was given leave to amend the complaint.
January 21, 2020 - A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.
January 6, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
September 19, 2019 - An investor in shares of Slack Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: WORK) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Slack Technologies, Inc. in connection with Slack Technologies’ initial public stock offering.
San Francisco, CA based Slack Technologies, Inc. operates Slack, a business technology software platform in the United States and internationally. Slack Technologies, Inc. reported that its Total Revenue rose from $220.54 million for the 12 months period that ended on January 31, 2018 to $400.55 million for the 12 months period that ended on January 31, 2019. On or about June 20, 2019, Slack Technologies, Inc sold 118.4 million shares of stock in its initial public stock offering (the IPO ), at $38.50 a share raising $ 4,559,541,140 in new capital.
On September 4, 2019, Slack Technologies, Inc reported second-quarter fiscal 2019 results and issued its financial outlook for its third quarter and full fiscal year 2020. Shares of Slack Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: WORK) declined to as low as $23.93 per share on September 3, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Slack Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: WORK), that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company’s Slack Platform was susceptible to recurring service-level disruptions, that such disruptions were increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its services to a larger user base, that the Company provides credits even if a customer was not specifically affected by service-level disruptions, that, as a result, any service-level disruptions would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial results, 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.