Shareholder-rights legal firm Lundin Law PC reports that it’s filed a class-action lawsuit against Lexmark International, which last year was acquired by China’s Apex Technology (now known as Ninestar Corporation) and a consortium of investors for $3.6 billion. The lawsuit contends that Lexmark misled investors by stating that the growth of its supplies for its printers and copier/MFPs was due to end-user demand, when in fact, the complaint alleges that supplies growth was actually due to price increases for supplies, and customers purchasing supplies before price increases went into effect.

The lawsuit involves possible violations of federal-securities laws that are alleged to have occurred between August 1, 2014 and July 20, 2015. Lundin Law says investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the class period should contact the firm prior to the September 19, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

Last month, the Labaton Sucharow law firm also filed a securities class-action lawsuit against Lexmark on behalf of its client, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, alleging that Lexmark “violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the company’s end-user demand, channel inventory, and growth prospects for its high-margin supplies business.”

No class has been certified yet for the Lundin Law lawsuit. Until a class is certified, investors are not considered represented by an attorney.

According to Lundin Law’s complaint, throughout the specified time 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.”

According to the law firm, on July 21, 2015, “Lexmark reported poor results for its second quarter ending June 30, 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.”

Those who wish to participate in the Lundin Law class action lawsuit, can visit Ludin Law here.

More Resources