International Business Machines Corporation
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM” or the “Company”) (NYSE: IBM) securities from April 4, 2017 through October 20, 2021 (the “Class Period”). Investors have until June 6, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
IBM ranks among the world’s largest information technology companies, providing a wide spectrum of hardware, software and service offerings.
On October 16, 2018, Defendants disclosed a shortfall in revenue and disappointing 3Q2018 growth associated with the Company’s Strategic Imperatives and CAMSS lines of business, particularly its Cloud business line. On this news, IBM’s stock price declined by $10.59 per share, or approximately 7.63%, from $138.74 per share on October 16, 2018 to close at $128.15 per share on October 17, 2018.
On October 20, 2021, after the close of the market, the Company announced a shortfall in revenue for the 3Q2021 with Cognitive & Cloud the main culprit. The stock had previously closed at $133.87 per share on October 20, 2021. On this news, IBM’s stock price declined by $12.97 per share, or approximately 9.56%, from $135.66 per share on October 20, 2021 to close at $122.69 per share on October 21, 2021.
The lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (i) Strategic Imperatives Revenue and growth, CAMSS and CAMSS Components’ revenue and growth, and the Company’s Segments’ revenue and growth were artificially inflated as a result of the wrongful reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as Strategic Imperatives Revenue; (ii) the Company’s present success and positive future growth prospects concerning its Strategic Imperative business strategy were being fueled by the wrongful reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as Strategic Imperative Revenue and, as a result (iii) misled the market by portraying the Company’s Strategic Imperative’s financial performance and future prospects more favorable than they actually were as a result of the wrongful reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as Strategic Imperatives.