Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the securities of Green Dot Corporation (“Green Dot” or the “Company”) (NYSE: GDOT) between January 26, 2012 and July 26, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of Green Dot during the Class Period and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to email@example.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/green-dot-corporation-gdot.
Green Dot, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Monrovia, California, is a leading financial services company providing simple, low-cost and convenient money management solutions to a broad base of U.S. customers. They proclaim to be the leading provider of general purpose reloadable, or GPR, prepaid debit cards in the United States, and that their Green Dot Network is the leading reload network for prepaid cards in the United States. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business operations, financial condition and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges (1) that the Company’s new internal risk policies and procedures were negatively impacting Green Dot’s growth in new account activations; (2) that certain of Green Dot’s retailers were planning to start selling competitive GPR products in addition to the Company’s products; (3) that the Company lacked historical data to accurately predict how these retailers selling of competitive GPR products would impact Green Dot’s sales; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants’ positive statements about Green Dot’s business, operations, and prospects, as well as those regarding Green Dot’s revenue outlook for the 2012 fiscal year, lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, the Company issued a press release on January 26, 2012 detailing their Q4 results for 2011 along with full-year guidance for 2012. In particular, the Company expressed that it expected another year of very strong top-line and bottom line growth in 2012. This belief was echoed in their April 26, 2012 press release reporting the Company’s financial results for Q1 of 2012.
However, on July 26, 2012, the Company issued a press release which now stated otherwise. In this release, which also contained Green Dot’s Q2 financial results, the Company updated its guidance for 2012. Citing a “greater level of uncertainty going forward in our business as the prepaid marketplace continues to evolve,” the Company decided to lower its guidance for the remainder of the year. The Company also pointed to a lack of historical data on how sales will be affected by the sale of competitive GPR products by their retailers. On this news, shares of the Company declined over 61%, closing at $9.06 per share on July 27, 2012, on extraordinary high volume of over 18 million shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 25, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.