Kipling

Kipling v. Flex Ltd.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 10, 20205:18-cv-02706California11,973 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

1 A. Factual Background 2 1. The Parties 3 Plaintiff National Elevator is a multiemployer pension plan as defined in sections 3(2)(A) 4 and 3(37) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. 5 §§ 1002(2)(A) and 1002(37). Am. Consolidated Class Action Compl. ¶ 35, ECF No. 140 (“AC” or 6 “Amended Complaint”). Plaintiff purchased Flex securities and was allegedly damaged by 7 Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions. Id. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class “of all 8 persons and entities who, during the period from January 26, 2017 to October 25, 2018, inclusive 9 (the ‘Class Period’), purchased the publicly traded common stock of Flex Ltd.” Id. at 1. 10 Defendant Flex is incorporated in Singapore and maintains offices in San Jose, California. 11 Id. ¶ 36. Flex’s common stock trades on the NASDAQ Stock Market under the ticker symbol 12 “FLEX.” Id. Defendant Michael M. McNamara (“McNamara”) served as the CEO of Flex and a 13 member of its Board of Directors until December 31, 2018. Id. ¶ 37. Defendant Christopher E. 14 Collier (“Collier”) serves as the CFO of Flex. Id. ¶ 38.1 Defendant Kevin Kessel (“Kessel”) serves 15 as the Vice…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.