3 unchanged sentences
GitLab et al., Case No.
−Removed: 5:24-cv-06244-EKL, naming GitLab and certain of our officers.
−Removed: The complaint purports to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, on behalf of persons and entities who acquired our common stock between June 5, 2023 and June 3, 2024 (the “Class Period”).
−Removed: Plaintiff alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions regarding our use of AI features and ability to monetize our AI capabilities that artificially inflated our stock price.
−Removed: Plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount, as well as fees and costs.
−Removed: Plaintiff amended his complaint on February 5, 2025 and March 7, 2025, and we will move to dismiss the second amended complaint in April 2025.
−Removed: Two putative shareholder derivative cases have been filed containing allegations based on or similar to those in the securities class action.
+Added: 24-cv-06244-EKL (“Dolly”), naming GitLab and certain of our officers.
+Added: The complaint purported to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act, on behalf of persons and entities who acquired our common stock between June 5, 2023 and June 3, 2024 (the “Class Period”).
+Added: Plaintiff allege d that, during the Class Period, defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions regarding, among other things, our use of AI features and ability to monetize our AI capabilities that artificially inflated our stock price.
+Added: Plaintiff sought , among other things, damages in an unspecified amount, as well as fees and costs.
+Added: Plaintiff amended his complaint on February 5, 2025 and March 7, 2025, and we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in April 2025.
+Added: On August 14, 2025, the court granted our motion to dismiss with leave for the plaintiff to amend
+Added: Table of Conte n t s
+Added: and refile a third amended complaint.
+Added: On September 8, 2025, the plaintiff filed a stipulation stating that he had decided not to file an amended complaint or to appeal the motion to dismiss order.
+Added: The case was dismissed with prej udice and final judgment was entered on behalf of GitLab on January 26, 2026.
+Added: Three putative shareholder derivative cases were filed containing allegations based on or similar to those in the securities class action.
The cases were filed on February 14, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Preciado v.
1 unchanged sentence
25-cv-01597 (“Preciado”);
−Removed: and on February 19, 2025 in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Jones v.
+Added: on February 19, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Jones v.
Sijbrandij et al., Case No.
25-cv-01735 (“Jones”);
−Removed: Both cases are allegedly brought on our behalf.
−Removed: Each of the lawsuits name us as a nominal defendant, and also certain of our officers and current and former members of our board of directors.
−Removed: The Jones complaint purports to assert claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as breach of fiduciary duty, while the Preciado complaint purports to assert those claims as well as unjust enrichment and related corporate torts.
−Removed: The complaints seek to recover unspecified damages and other relief on our behalf.
−Removed: Based on the preliminary nature of the proceedings in these actions, the outcomes remain uncertain and the Company cannot estimate the potential impact, if any, on its business or financial statements at this time.
−Removed: In addition to the shareholder matters described above, we are, and from time to time may become, involved in legal proceedings or be subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of our business.
+Added: and on March 28, 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Lianto v.
+Added: Sijbrandij et al., Case No.
+Added: 25-cv-02924 (“Lianto”).
+Added: Each of the three cases was allegedly brought on our behalf.
+Added: Each of the lawsuits named us as a nominal defendant, and also certain of our officers and current and former members of our board of directors.
+Added: The Jones complaint purport ed to assert claims under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act as well as breach of fiduciary duty, while the Preciado and Lianto complaints purported to assert those claims as well as unjust enrichment and related corporate torts.
+Added: The complaints sought to recover unspecified damages and other relief on our behalf.
+Added: In January 2026, the plaintiffs in each of these three putative shareholder derivative cases agreed to voluntarily dismiss their respective claims.
+Added: All three cases were dismissed on January 26, 2026.
+Added: In addition to the now-dismissed shareholder matters described above, we are, and from time to time may become, involved in legal proceedings or be subject to claims arising in the ordinary course of our business.
We are not presently a party to any legal proceedings that in the opinion of management, if determined adversely to us, would individually or taken together have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results.
2 unchanged sentences
MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES
+Added: Table of Conte n t s
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.