Portfolio Categories Archives: Litigation

Tableau Software Securites Litigation

This is an abbreviated version of Battea’s Tableau Software securities litigation proprietary research. Full case summaries and economic analyses are available to clients through Battea’s litigation monitoring portal. For more information, or to request a demonstration, contact Battea.

Case Filed: July 28, 2017

Case Summary

Securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Tableau common stock between June 3, 2015 and February 4, 2016, pursuant to sections 10(b) & 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

NYSEDATA
Lead Plaintiff Deadline9/26/2017

Preliminary Allegations

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that product launches and upgrades by major software competitors were negatively impacting tableau’s competitive position and profitability, and as a result of the foregoing, Tableau’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Brief Company Profile

Tableau Software, Inc. provides business analytics software products. It offers Tableau Desktop, a self-service analytics product that empowers people to access and analyze data independently; and Tableau Server, a business intelligence platform with data management  and scalability to foster sharing of analytics, as well as to improve the dissemination of information across an organization and promote improved decision-making.

Tableau Software, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.

Class Period6/3/15 - 2/4/16
CourtS.D. New York
Docket #17-CV-05753
JudgeHon. John G. Koeltl
Plaintiff(s)CARRIE SCHEUFELE, JEFFREY SCHEUFELE, and NICHOLAS ORAM
Defendant(s)TABLEAU SOFTWARE, INC., CHRISTIAN CHABOT, and THOMAS WALKER

Tableau Software Securities Litigation Price Chart

Continue Reading

Sequans Communications Securities Litigation

This is an abbreviated version of Battea’s Sequans Communications securities litigation proprietary research. Full case summaries and economic analyses are available to clients through Battea’s litigation monitoring portal. For more information, or to request a demonstration, contact Battea.

Case Filed: August 9, 2017

Case Summary

Securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Sequans from April 29, 2016 through July 31, 2017, pursuant to sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

NYSESQNS
Lead Plaintiff Deadline10/8/2017

Preliminary Allegations

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the company was improperly recognizing revenue; and (2) as a result, the company’s public statements were materially false and misleading.

Brief Company Profile

Sequans Communications S.A., together with its subsidiaries, engages in fabless designing, developing, and supplying 4G LTE semiconductor solutions for wireless broadband applications.

Sequans Communications S.A. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Paris, France.

Class Period4/29/16 - 7/31/17
CourtE.D. New York
Docket #17-CV-04665
JudgeHon. Frederic Block
Plaintiff(s)ANDREW RENNER
Defendant(s)SEQUANS COMMUNICATIONS S.A., GEORGES KARAM, and DEBORAH CHOATE

Sequans Securities Litigation Price Chart

Continue Reading

GlobalScape Securities Litigation

This is an abbreviated version of Battea’s GlobalScape securities litigation proprietary research. Full case summaries and economic analyses are available to clients through Battea’s litigation monitoring portal. For more information, or to request a demonstration, contact Battea.

Case Filed: August 9, 2017

Case Summary

Securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired GlobalScape common stock between January 26, 2017 through August 7, 2017, pursuant to sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

NYSEGSB
Lead Plaintiff Deadline10/8/2017

Preliminary Allegations

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GlobalScape overstated the reported amounts of accounts receivable as of December 31, 2016, and license revenue for the three months and  year ended December 31, 2016, resulting in the overstatement of the company’s revenues for those periods; (ii) the company’s total current assets and total assets were overstated; (iii) the company’s total stockholder equity and total liabilities and stockholders’ equity were overstated; and (iv) the company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting.

Brief Company Profile

GlobalSCAPE, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and distributes software, delivers managed and hosted solutions, and provides associated services for secure information exchange, and file transfer and sharing for enterprises and consumers worldwide.

GlobalSCAPE, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.

Class Period1/26/17 - 8/7/17
CourtW.D. Texas
Docket #17-cv-00753
JudgeUnassigned
Plaintiff(s)ANTHONY GIOVAGNOLI
Defendant(s)GLOBALSCAPE, INC., MATTHEW C. GOULET, and JAMES W. ALBRECHT, JR.,

GlobalScape Securities Litigation Price Chart

Continue Reading

Intellipharmaceutics Securities Litigation

This is an abbreviated version of Battea’s Intellipharmaceutics securities litigation proprietary research. Full case summaries and economic analyses are available to clients through Battea’s litigation monitoring portal. For more information, or to request a demonstration, contact Battea.

Case Filed: July 28, 2017

Case Summary

Securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Intellipharmaceutics common stock between January 14, 2016 and July 26, 2017, pursuant to sections 10(b) & 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

NASDAQIPCI
Lead Plaintiff Deadline9/26/2017

Preliminary Allegations

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Intellipharmaceutics failed to conduct a human abuse liability study to support its Rexista NDA; (2) the company did not include abuse-deterrent studies conducted to support abuse-deterrent label claims related abuse of the drug by various pathways, including oral, intra-nasal and intravenous routes of abuse; (3) Intellipharmceutics was not submitting sufficient data to support approval of the Rexista NDA; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ statements about Intellipharmaceutics’ business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading.

Brief Company Profile

Intellipharmaceutics International Inc., a pharmaceutical company, researches, develops, and manufactures novel and generic controlled-release and targeted-release oral solid dosage drugs in Canada. It develops various drug delivery systems and a pipeline of products based on its patented Hypermatrix technology in therapeutic areas, including neurology, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal tract, diabetes, and pain.

The company was founded in 1998 and is based in Toronto, Canada.

Class Period1/14/16 - 7/26/17
CourtS.D. New York
Docket #17-CV-05761
JudgeHon. J. Paul Oetken
Plaintiff(s)SHAWN SHANAWAZ
Defendant(s)INTELLIPHARMACEUTICS INTERNATIONAL INC., ISA ODIDI and DOMENIC DELLA PENNA

Intellipharmaceutics Securities Litigation Price Chart

Continue Reading

TechnipFMC Securities Litigation

This is an abbreviated version of Battea’s TechnipFMC securities litigation proprietary research. Full case summaries and economic analyses are available to clients through Battea’s litigation monitoring portal. For more information, or to request a demonstration, contact Battea.

Case Filed: August 3, 2017

Case Summary

Securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired TechnipFMC securities between April 27, 2017 and July 24, 2017, pursuant to sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

NYSEFTI
Lead Plaintiff Deadline10/2/2017

Preliminary Allegations

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) TechnipFMC had a material weakness in its internal control over rates used in the calculations of the foreign currency effects on certain of its engineering and construction projects; (2) accordingly, the company lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, TechnipFMC’s public statements were materially false and misleading.

Brief Company Profile

TechnipFMC plc provides technologies, systems, and services for oil and gas projects worldwide. It operates in three segments: Subsea, Onshore/Offshore, and Surface Projects. The subsea segment offers products, such as trees, manifolds, controls, templates, flowline systems, umbilicals, and flexibles, as well as subsea processing products.

The company is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.

Class Period4/27/17 - 7/24/17
CourtS.D. Texas
Docket #17-cv-02368
JudgeUnassigned
Plaintiff(s)JOSEPH PRAUSE

Defendant(s)TECHNIPFMC PLC, DOUGLAS J. PFERDEHIRT and MARYANN T. MANNEN




TechnipFMC Securities Litigation Price Chart

Continue Reading

Advisory Board Company Securities Litigation

This is an abbreviated version of Battea’s Advisory Board securities litigation proprietary research. Full case summaries and economic analyses are available to clients through Battea’s litigation monitoring portal. For more information, or to request a demonstration, contact Battea.

Case Filed: August 3, 2017

Case Summary

Securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Advisory Board between January 21, 2015 and February 23, 2016, pursuant to sections 10(b) & 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

NASDAQABCO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline10/2/2017

Preliminary Allegations

The complaint alleges that unbeknownst to investors, Advisory Board’s depiction of Royall’s reported revenue for prior years was materially misleading because, as a private company, Royall could take longer to close its books than as a subsidiary of Advisory Board, and with its books open longer, Royall had been able to recognize revenue in prior years that it otherwise could not recognize once it became a part of Advisory Board.  During the class period, defendants concealed the existence of integration problems in connection with the Royall acquisition despite a duty to disclose them.

Brief Company Profile

The Advisory Board Company provides best practices research and insight, technology, consulting and management, and data-enabled services in the United States and internationally. It’s best practices research and insight programs include published studies, executive education, proprietary databases and online services, access to experts, executive briefings, and other services.

The Advisory Board Company was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in Washington, District of Columbia.

Class Period1/21/15 - 2/23/16
CourtS.D. New York
Docket #17-cv-05886
JudgeHon. Lewis A. Kaplan
Plaintiff(s)MONROE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Defendant(s)THE ADVISORY BOARD COMPANY, ROBERT W. MUSSLEWHITE, and MICHAEL T. KIRSHBAUM

Advisory Board Securities Litigation Price Chart

Continue Reading

Envision Healthcare Corporation

This is an abbreviated version of Battea’s Envision Healthcare Corporation securities litigation proprietary research. Full case summaries and economic analyses are available to clients through Battea’s litigation monitoring portal. For more information, or to request a demonstration, contact Battea.

Case Filed: August 4, 2017

Case Summary

Securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Envision securities between March 2, 2015 and July 21, 2017, pursuant to sections 10(b) & 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

NYSEEVHC
Lead Plaintiff Deadline10/3/2017

Preliminary Allegations

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) EmCare routinely arranged for patients who sought treatment at in-network facilities to be treated by out of network physicians; (ii) EmCare accordingly billed these patients at higher rates than if the patients had received treatment from in network physicians; (iii) the Company’s statements attributing EmCare’s Class Period growth to other factors were therefore false and/or misleading; and  (iv) Envision’s EmCare revenues were likely to be unsustainable after the foregoing conduct came to light.

Brief Company Profile

Envision Healthcare Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various healthcare services in the United States. The company operates through three reportable segments: Physician Services, Medical Transportation, and Ambulatory Services.

Envision Healthcare Corporation was founded in 1992 and is based in Nashville, Tennessee.

Class Period3/2/15 - 7/21/17
CourtM.D. Tennessee
Docket #17-CV-01112
JudgeHon. Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr
Plaintiff(s)TERRY W. BETTIS
Defendant(s)ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION f/k/a
ENVISION HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.,
CHRISTOPHER A. HOLDEN, WILLIAM A. SANGER,
CLAIRE M. GULMI, and RANDEL G. OWEN

Envision Healthcare Corporation Securities Litigation Price Chart

Continue Reading

Applied Optoelectronics Securities Litigation

This is an abbreviated version of Battea’s Applied Optoelectronics securities litigation proprietary research. Full case summaries and economic analyses are available to clients through Battea’s litigation monitoring portal. For more information, or to request a demonstration, contact Battea.

Case Filed: August 5, 2017

Case Summary

Securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock and/or call options of Applied Optoelectronics or sold put options from July 13, 2017 through August 3, 2017, pursuant to sections 10(b) & 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

NASDAQAAOI
Lead Plaintiff Deadline10/4/2017

Preliminary Allegations

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a major customer was reducing its purchases of the company’s 40G receivers; (2) the loss of this major customer’s business would have a severe negative impact on the company’s financial performance; and (3) as a result, the company’s public statements were materially false and misleading.

Brief Company Profile

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells fiber-optic networking products primarily for Internet data center, cable television (CATV), and fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) networking end-markets. It offers optical modules, lasers, transmitters and transceivers, and turn-key equipment, as well as headend, node, and distribution equipment.

Applied Optoelectronics, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas.

Class Period7/13/17 - 8/3/17
CourtS.D. Texas
Docket #17-cv-02399
JudgeUnassigned
Plaintiff(s)MONA ABOUZIED
Defendant(s)APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INC., CHIHHSIANG (THOMPSON) LIN, and STEFAN J. MURRY

Applied Optoelectronics Securities Litigation Price Chart

Continue Reading

Maximus Securities Litigation

This is an abbreviated version of Battea’s Maximus securities litigation proprietary research. Full case summaries and economic analyses are available to clients through Battea’s litigation monitoring portal. For more information, or to request a demonstration, contact Battea.

Case Filed: August 4, 2017

Case Summary

Securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Maximus common stock between October 30, 2014 and February 3, 2016, pursuant to sections 10(b) & 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

NYSEMMS
Lead Plaintiff Deadline10/3/2017

Preliminary Allegations

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in obtaining the HAAS contract, Maximus set an unattainable target number of healthcare professionals to recruit and an unattainable target number of assessments; (2) throughout the HAAS contract, Maximus was struggling to recruit, train and ramp up new health care staff to perform the assessments; (3) the inability to meet its target number of healthcare recruits and target number of assessments, meant Maximus would not earn the performance based incentive fees from the HAAS contract; and (4) consequently, defendants statements about the financial condition of the company and outlook were misleading.

Brief Company Profile

MAXIMUS, Inc. provides business process services (BPS) to government health and human services programs in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Saudi Arabia.   MAXIMUS, Inc. was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia.

Class Period10/30/14 - 2/3/16
CourtE.D. Virginia
Docket #17-CV-00884
JudgeHon. Anthony J Trenga
Plaintiff(s)STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION PLAN
Defendant(s)MAXIMUS, INC., RICHARD MONTONI, RICHARD NADEAU, and BRUCE CASWELL

Maximus Securities Litigation Price Chart

Continue Reading

Lexmark Securities Litigation

This is an abbreviated version of Battea’s Lexmark securities litigation proprietary research. Full case summaries and economic analyses are available to clients through Battea’s litigation monitoring portal. For more information, or to request a demonstration, contact Battea.

Case Filed: July 20, 2017

Case Summary

Securities class action brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Lexmark between August 1, 2014 and July 20, 2015, pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

NYSELYK
Lead Plaintiff Deadline9/18/2017

Preliminary Allegations

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (1) end-user demand and growth for the Company’s supplies business was deteriorating; (2) pricing increases were the primary driver of supplies revenue growth, not end-user demand; (3) customers in the supplies channel reacted by buying ahead of anticipated pricing increases; and as a result, (4) there was excessive inventory levels at its European wholesale distributors.

Brief Company Profile

Lexmark International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and the surviving company of a merger between itself and its former parent holding company, Lexmark International Group, Inc., (“Group”) consummated on July 1, 2000. Group was formed in July 1990 in connection with the acquisition of IBM Information Products Corporation from International Business Machines Corporation. The acquisition was completed in March 1991. On November 15, 1995, Group completed its initial public offering of Class A Common Stock and Lexmark now trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “LXK.” Lexmark makes it easier for businesses of all sizes to improve their business processes by enabling them to capture, manage and access critical unstructured business information in the context of their business processes while speeding the movement and management of information between the paper and digital worlds. Lexmark’s corporate headquarters is located in Lexington, Kentucky.

Class Period8/1/14 - 7/20/15
CourtS.D. New York
Docket #17-cv-05543
Judgeunassigned
Plaintiff(s)OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Defendant(s)DAVID REEDER, LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
PAUL A. ROOKE, MARTIN S. CANNING, GARY STROMQUIST

Lexmark Securities Litigation Price Chart

Lexmark_Securities_Litigation_Price_Chart

Continue Reading