Two more class action lawsuits were filed against Lexmark on behalf of investors and shareholders.
Goldberg Law PC, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Lexmark International, Inc. for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Also, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (“GPM”) announced a class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Lexmark International, Inc. securities between 1 August 2014 and 20 July 2015, inclusive.
The first complaint alleges that during the classified period, Lexmark made materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose material information, about its business and prospects. On 21 July 2015, Lexmark reported poor results for its second quarter ending 30 June 2015, and lowered its 2015 sales guidance. Lexmark revealed that its supplies growth was not attributable to end-user demand but rather the result of its European customers buying ahead of customary price increases, which produced excessive inventory.
Following this news, Lexmark’s stock price dropped materially, which caused investors harm.
According to the complaint, throughout the above mentioned period, Lexmark made materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose, that: end-user demand and growth for the company’s supplies business was deteriorating; that pricing increases were the primary driver of supplies revenue growth, not end-user demand; that customers in the supplies channel reacted by buying ahead of anticipated pricing increases; and that as a result, there were excessive inventory levels at its European wholesale distributors.
On 21 July 2015, Lexmark reported poor results for its second quarter ending 30 June 2015 and lowered its 2015 sales guidance. The company revealed its supplies growth was not attributable to end-user demand but rather the result of its European customers buying ahead of customary price increases which produced excessive inventory. Upon release of this news, shares of Lexmark fell in value materially, which caused investors harm according to the complaint.
This follows from the previously announced class action lawsuits filed by Khang & Khang LLP and Ludin Law PC.
The period in question pre-dates the acquisition of Lexmark by the Ninestar Corporation (formally Apex Technology Co. Ltd) in November 2016.