This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 09/20/2022 at 09:58:40 (UTC).

Cupat v. Palantir Technologies Inc. et al

Case Summary

On September 15, 2022, Minchie Galot Cupat (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman of Pomerantz LLP-New York, filed a civil action against Palantir Technologies Inc. (“Palantir” or the “Company”), Alexander C. Karp (“Karp”), David Glazer (“Glazer”), and Shyam Sankar (“Sankar”) (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking declaratory relief and damages for the defendants’ alleged wrongful act. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, with judges Charlotte N. Sweeney and S. Kato Crews presiding.

Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class, consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Palantir securities during the Class Period (the “Class”).

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “Palantir builds and deploys software platforms to assist the U.S. intelligence community in counterterrorism investigations and operations. The Company has two operating segments, commercial and government, with the latter primarily serving agencies in the U.S. federal government and non-U.S. governments. Palantir also invests in so-called ‘marketable securities’ consisting of equity securities in publicly-traded companies.”

The plaintiff further stated, “Palantir has consistently described sources of geopolitical instability and other disruptions—e.g., armed conflicts, economic crises, and the COVID-19 pandemic—as tailwinds for its business, given that the Company’s products and services are purportedly built to aid its customers in assessing and responding to such disruptions.”

The plaintiff alleged, “Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Palantir’s investments in marketable securities were having a significant negative impact on the Company’s earnings per share (‘EPS’) results; (ii) Palantir overstated the sustainability of its government segment’s growth and revenues; (iii) Palantir was experiencing a significant slowdown in revenue growth, particularly among its government customers, despite ongoing global conflicts and market disruptions.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “On May 9, 2022, Palantir issued a press release announcing its Q1 financial results and guidance for Q2. For Q1, Palantir announced adjusted EPS of $0.02, compared to analyst estimates of $0.04 per share, noting on a conference call that the ‘[f]irst quarter adjusted [EPS of] $0.02 . . . includes a negative $0.02 impact driven primarily by unrealized losses on marketable securities.’ The Company also disclosed that government revenue grew by only 16% year-over- year for Q1, representing a significant slowdown in revenue growth compared to prior quarters, and that, for Q2, the Company expected $470 million in sales, compared to estimates of $483.76 million.”

The plaintiff also alleged, “As multiple news outlets reported that day, Palantir’s significant decline in revenue growth, particularly from its government customers, surprised investors, especially given the  ongoing geopolitical instability and other disruptions caused by, inter alia, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and Russo-Ukrainian War—that is, precisely the type of destabilizing conditions that the Company had previously touted as tailwinds for its business.”

Plaintiff listed two claims for relief, including claims for the alleged violations of section 10(b), 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In its prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested a judgment for declaratory relief. The plaintiff also requested an award for costs and damages along with pre- and post-judgment interest.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:22-CV-02384

  • Filing Date:

    09/15/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Finance - Security/Commodity/Exchange

Judge Details

Referral Judge

S. Kato Crews

Presiding Judge

Charlotte N. Sweeney

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Minchie Galot Cupat

Defendants

Palantir Technologies Inc.

Alexander C. Karp

David Glazer

Shyam Sankar

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Jeremy Alan Lieberman

Attorney at Pomerantz LLP-New York

600 Third Avenue, 20Th Floor

New York, NY 10016

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #2

Proposed Summons - Palantir Technologies Inc.

1 #3

Proposed Summons - Alexander C. Karp

1 #4

Proposed Summons - David Glazer

1 #5

Proposed Summons - Shyam Sankar

3 #3

Main Document

3 #1

Summons

3 #2

Summons

3 #3

Summons

3 #4

Magistrate Judge Consent Form

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/16/2022
  • Docket(#4) ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews non-dispositive matters. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of Local Civ. R. 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions, (4) pursuant to Local Civ. R. 16.6 and at the discretion of the Magistrate Judge, convene such early neutral evaluation and/or settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case without the necessity of a motion or prior authorization of the undersigned. By Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 9/16/2022. Text Only Entry (cnssec.) (Entered: 09/16/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) SUMMONS issued by Clerk. (Attachments: #1 Summons, #2 Summons, #3 Summons, #4 Magistrate Judge Consent Form) (jcharl, ) (Entered: 09/15/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2022
  • Docket(#2) Case assigned to Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney and drawn to Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews. Text Only Entry. (jcharl, ) (Entered: 09/15/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against David Glazer, Alexander C. Karp, Palantir Technologies Inc., Shyam Sankar (Filing fee $ 402,Receipt Number ACODC-8659939)Attorney Jeremy Alan Lieberman added to party Minchie Galot Cupat(pty:pla), filed by Minchie Galot Cupat. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons - Palantir Technologies Inc., #3 Proposed Summons - Alexander C. Karp, #4 Proposed Summons - David Glazer, #5 Proposed Summons - Shyam Sankar)(Lieberman, Jeremy) (Entered: 09/15/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Palantir Technologies Inc., is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Jeremy Alan Lieberman