In re Impinj, Inc. Securities Litigation
|Court:||United States District Court, Western District of Washington|
|Judge:||Hon. Robert S. Lasnik|
|Class Period:||7/21/16 - 2/15/2018|
|Case Contacts:||Jonathan D. Uslaner, Michael D. Blatchley, Lauren M. Cruz|
This is a securities fraud class action filed on behalf of all purchasers of Impinj, Inc. (“Impinj” or the “Company”) common stock between July 21, 2016 and February 15, 2018, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Impinj, a manufacturer of radio-frequency identification products used to manage inventory, and three of the Company’s senior executives.
The case, which was commenced by Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge (“Baton Rouge”) on October 2, 2018, concerns Defendants’ alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the capabilities of and demand for Impinj’s product platform (“Platform”). The Complaint alleges Defendants falsely told investors that the Company’s Platform had the ability to accurately locate tagged items. The Complaint alleges that Defendants also falsely claimed that increased demand for the Platform was fueling its record revenue growth. According to the Complaint, the Platform suffered from poor location accuracy and demand for the Platform was declining during the Class Period. In response to Defendants’ statements, the price of Impinj’s shares traded at artificially-inflated levels, reaching a high of over $59 per share during the Class Period. When the truth emerged in a series of partial disclosures, the price declined to $11 per share.
On January 14, 2019, the Court appointed Baton Rouge as Lead Plaintiff for the Class and Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann LLP as Lead Counsel.
On February 13, 2019, Lead Plaintiff filed its consolidated class action complaint provisionally under seal.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, and Plaintiffs opposed their motion. On October 4, 2019, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss was largely denied by the Court, and the action is now in the discovery phase.
Other Cases of Interest
Eastern District of Missouri Jonathan D. Uslaner, Lauren M. Cruz
Allergan, Inc. (Proxy Violation)
Central District of California Mark Lebovitch, Jeremy P. Robinson, Michael D. Blatchley, Richard D. Gluck, Edward G. Timlin
Energy Transfer LP
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Michael D. Blatchley
Mohawk Industries, Inc.
Northern District of Georgia Michael D. Blatchley
Northern District of California John Rizio-Hamilton, Mark Lebovitch, Jonathan D. Uslaner, Abe Alexander, Julia Tebor
Venator Materials PLC
Southern District of Texas John C. Browne, Michael D. Blatchley,
District of Minnesota Michael D. Blatchley, Michael Mathai
Apollo Education Group
District of Arizona Jonathan D. Uslaner
Northern District of California, San Jose Division Jonathan D. Uslaner, Adam Hollander