Brodsky & Smith Files Class Action Lawsuit Vs. SanDisk

Law Office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC has filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of SanDisk Corp. securities, who purchased or otherwise acquired SanDisk’s securities between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

SanDisk designs, develops and manufactures storage solutions.  The company’s products include SSDs, embedded products, removable cards, USB drives, wireless media drives, and digital media players.

On January 12, 2015, SanDisk provided preliminary revenue results for its fiscal fourth quarter. The company estimated that, for the quarter, its total revenue would be “approximately $1.73 billion, lower than the previously forecasted revenue range of $1.80 billion to $1.85 billion.” According to the company, the lower revenue result was “primarily due to weaker than expected sales of retail and iNAND products.”  Following this news, shares of the company’s stock declined $13.47 per share, or over 13.8%, to close on January 12, 2015 at $83.57 per share.

Finally, on March 26, 2015, the company announced that it expected to report revenue for the fiscal first quarter of “approximately $1.3 billion, depending on final sell-through results, compared to the previously forecasted revenue range of $1.40 billion to $1.45 billion.” In discussing its revenue estimation for the quarter, the company stated that “[t]he change in first quarter revenue estimate is primarily due to certain product qualification delays, lower than expected sales of enterprise products and lower pricing in some areas of the business. The company expects continued impact to its 2015 financial results from these factors as well as the previously identified supply challenges, and now forecasts 2015 revenue to be lower than the previous guidance.” Additionally, the company withdrew its financial forecasts for the quarter and the remainder of the year. Following this news, shares of the company’s stock declined an additional $14.98 per share, or over 18.4%, to close on March 26, 2015 at $66.20 per share.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) the company was experiencing production delays with certain of its products; (2) the company was experiencing lower than expected sales; (3) the company was suffering from a lower pricing environment in certain business areas; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants’ statements about the company’s financial wellbeing and future business prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis when made.

SanDisk shareholders may, no later than May 29, 2015, move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. The ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Read also:
Class Action by Law Offices of Vincent Wong Vs. SanDisk
For materially false and misleading statements
The Rosen Law Firm Filed Securities Class Action Vs. SanDisk
To recover damages for investors
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Vs. SanDisk by Faruqi & Faruqi
Alleging company and executives violated federal securities laws
Class Action Lawsuit Filed Vs. SanDisk by Howard G. Smith …
For investors with losses in excess of $100,000 in stock
… And Levi & Korsinsky
Involving possible violations of federal securities laws
Investigation of SanDisk by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg …
Following statements concerning business and financial prospects
… As Well as Robbins Arroyo …
For misleading shareholders
… And Rigrodsky & Long …
Alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 vs. company and certain officers
… And Brower Piven
Investors have until May 29, 2015 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.
Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims On Behalf of Investors of SanDisk …
Concerning violation of Securities Exchange Act of 1934
… As Well as Bernstein Liebhard …
On behalf Of those who invested In SanDisk
… And Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman
On behalf of purchasers of the securities of SanDisk