December 16, 2019 - The case was voluntarily dismissed.
November 13, 2019 - An amended complaint was filed.
June 6, 2019 - An investor in shares of Box Inc (NYSE: BOX) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Box Inc in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between November 28, 2018 and June 3, 2019.
Redwood City, CA based Box, Inc. provides a cloud content management platform that enables organizations of various sizes to manage and share their content from anywhere or any device.
On February 27, 2019, the Company reported fourth quarter and fully year financial results. Box Inc reported that its Total Revenue rose from $506.14 million for the 12 months period that ended on January 31, 2018 to $608.38 million for the 12 months period that ended on January 31, 2019 and that its Net Loss over those respective time periods declined from $154.96 million to $134.61 million.
Box Inc’s fourth quarter revenue fell below investors’ expectations, citing longer sales cycles for seven-figure deals.
Then on June 3, 2019, Box Inc (NYSE: BOX) lowered its fiscal 2020 revenue outlook to a range of $688 million to $692 million, from previous guidance of $700 million to $704 million, again citing longer sales cycles for its larger deals.
On this news, the Company’s share price fell as much as $1.30, or more than 7%, to close at $17.18 per share on June 4, 2019, thereby injuring investors further.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Box Inc (NYSE: BOX) common shares between November 28, 2018 and June 3, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between November 28, 2018 and June 3, 2019, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter, that, as a result, the Company’s revenue would be materially impacted, 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.