Glancy prongay & murray llp files a securities class action on behalf of sonim technologies, inc. investors

Glancy prongay & murray llp announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the united states district court for the northern district of california, captioned malhotra v. sonim technologies, inc., et. al., (case no. 3:19-cv-06416) on behalf of persons and/or entities that acquired sonim technologies, inc. common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the registration statement) issued in connection with the company’s may 2019 initial public offering (ipo or the offering). plaintiff pursues claims under sections 11 and 15 of the securities act of 1933 (the securities act). investors are hereby notified that they have 60 daysfrom the date of this notice to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. may 2019, the company completed its initial public offering (ipo) in which it sold approximately 4.07 million shares of common stock at a price of $11.00 per share. on september 10, 2019, sonim stated that it expected fiscal 2019 net revenues to be flat or slightly below 2018 net revenues of $135.7 million, citing significant delays in the launch of new products as well as software issues related to these new introductions. moreover, the company disclosed that james walker will cease serving as the company’s chief financial officer. on this news, the company’s share price fell $3.30, or nearly 47%, to close at $3.76 per share on september 10, 2019, thereby injuring investors. by the commencement of this action, sonim stock was trading as low as $3.39 per share, a nearly 70% decline from the $11 per share ipo price. the complaint filed in this class action alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s business, operations, and prospects. specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the company’s xp8 was experiencing material software challenges; (2) that these software issues adversely affected how the device’s qualcomm chipset, which supported band 14 access, connected to at&t’s carrier network configuration; (3) that the company’s xp5 and xp3 devices were experiencing material software defects that adversely affected their optimization with certain accessories; (4) that, as a result, the company was reasonably likely to delay the launch of new products; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company’s financial results would be materially and adversely impacted; and (6) 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.
SONM Ratings Summary
SONM Quant Ranking