NetApp has said it will be relocating to 700 Santana Row as its new headquarters, following the recent $365 million sale of its 700,000-square-foot campus in Sunnyvale, California. The termination of the lease enabled NetApp, Inc.-a cloud-based data services and data management company affiliated with Federal Real Estate Investment Trust-to lease 700 Santana Row. in divesting the lease of one of its office buildings, located at 700 Santana Row in San Jose, California. Triana advised San Francisco-based data analytics and technology company Splunk Inc. Manatt Represents Splunk in Early Exit From 700 Santana Row Office Building Lease April 26, 2021

New York State Government, Regulatory Policy and Government Contracts.

New York City Government, Policy and Government Contracts.

Medical Technology and Life Sciences FDA Regulation.

Federal Government Affairs and Public Policy.

California State Government and Regulatory Policy and Government Contracts.

Tax, Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation.

Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs).

Estate Planning and Personal Representation.

Name Image Likeness (NIL) in College Athletics.

Long-Term Care/Long-Term Services and Supports.

New York State Government Resource Center.

Manatt COVID-19 Client Service Response Team.

Technology and Intellectual Property Litigation.TCPA Compliance and Class Action Defense.

Investigations, Compliance and White Collar Defense.Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement.Government Litigation and Administrative Law.Financial Services Litigation and Enforcement.On March 21, 2022, Judge Tigar largely rejected Defendants’ motion to dismiss and upheld the Consolidated Complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on July 27, 2021, and Lead Plaintiff opposed that motion. On June 7, 2021, Lead Plaintiff filed the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which can be found in the “Case Documents” link immediately to the left of this description. Tigar appointed Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension & Relief Fund as Lead Plaintiff and BLB&G as Lead Counsel for the potential Class. Faced with the consequences of their undisclosed corporate actions, Defendants also withdrew their coveted guidance to investors that they would eclipse $1 billion in positive operating cash flow by 2023.Īs a result of Splunk and its executives material misrepresentations and omissions, Splunk’s stock price cratered 23% in a single trading day, erasing over $7.7 billion in shareholder value. Quarterly revenues dropped 11% year-over-year, and net losses ballooned. ” As a result, Splunk suffered a hard miss in its third-quarter financial results. At the end of the Class Period, on December 3, 2020, Defendants stunned investors when they admitted that Splunk, indeed, “suspended investments in marketing” and “froze hiring.” These cutbacks, they acknowledged, caused Splunk to have “a tighter pipeline going into. And it was not continuing to hire new sales personnel. They buttressed these statements with additional representations during investor conference calls, assuring the market that-with the exception of a short, two-week hiatus in early March 2020-the Company was continuously hiring.īut unknown to investors at the time, Splunk was not continuing to invest in marketing during the Class Period. Defendants also told investors in Splunk’s SEC filings and elsewhere that they were continuously hiring additional sales professionals. In each of their quarterly and annual filings with the SEC during the Class Period, Defendants told investors that they were continuously investing in marketing. Splunk told investors that it would accomplish these milestones through continuous investments in marketing and the continuous hiring of additional sales personnel. Splunk’s CEO, Defendant Merritt, assured investors that the Company would soon turn the corner, reaching positive operational cash flow by 2022 and achieving over a billion dollars in positive operational cash flow by 2023. Splunk has operated at a net loss every year since its inception and, by the beginning of the Class Period, had negative operating cash flows. (“Splunk” or the “Company) between Maand December 2, 2020, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

This is a securities fraud class action on behalf of persons and entities who purchased common stock of Splunk Inc.

Splunk company