Arlo and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws.
On December 3, 2018, the Company disclosed that shipments of Arlo Ultra, its recently-announced flagship security camera system, were delayed due to “a quality issue with the battery from one of its suppliers” discovered during the final testing phase, and that as a result it lowered its Q4 2018 financial guidance.
On this news, the price of Arlo’s shares plummeted 42% from its IPO price.
The case is Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al, 19-cv-00372.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC (“KSF”) and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until March 25, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Arlo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: ARLO), if they purchased the Company’s shares issued in connection with its August 3, 2018 initial public offering (“IPO”). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
What You May Do
If you purchased shares of Arlo and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or click here to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by March 25, 2019.
About the Lawsuit
Arlo and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws.
On December 3, 2018, the Company disclosed that shipments of Arlo Ultra, its recently-announced flagship security camera system, were delayed due to “a quality issue with the battery from one of its suppliers” discovered during the final testing phase, and that as a result it lowered its Q4 2018 financial guidance.
On this news, the price of Arlo’s shares plummeted 42% from its IPO price.
The case is Wong v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al, 19-cv-00372.
