The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants misrepresented HP’s business and financial condition by issuing false and misleading statements regarding HP’s financial performance.
The class action is on behalf of an institutional investor seeking to represent purchasers of HP Inc. common stock between November 6, 2015 and June 21, 2016. The action was filed in the Northern District of California and is captioned York County on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund v. HP Inc., No. 20-cv-7835.
The HP class action lawsuit charges HP and certain of its former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants misrepresented HP’s business and financial condition by issuing false and misleading statements regarding HP’s financial performance and, in particular, its revenue, profit margin, and earnings. Specifically, defendants provided positive financial results for HP, but misrepresented and omitted to state that HP’s Supplies channel inventory management and sales practices had resulted in increased channel inventory and decreased revenues and profits. As a result of defendants’ false statements and omissions, the price of HP stock was artificially inflated to a high of more than $14 per share during the Class Period.
Then on June 21, 2016, HP announced an overhaul to its Printing sales model and revealed that it would reduce its Supplies channel inventory by $450 million, resulting in a corresponding reduction of $450 million in Supplies revenue over the remainder of 2016. Following this announcement, the price of HP stock declined 5.4% to close at $12.61 per share on June 22, 2016.
On October 1, The Recycler reported that the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) imposed US$6 million (€5.11 million) penalty on HP for undisclosed sales practices to settle charges levied by the SEC that the company misled investors by failing to disclose the impact of sales practices. HP agreed to pay the penalty without admitting or denying the SEC‘s findings.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
