Article Type: Lawsuit

Abengoa (ABGB) Securities Fraud Class action Lawsuit

Abengoa is an engineering and clean-technology company based in Spain that uses innovative technology solutions for sustainability in the areas of energy and the environment. It generates electricity from renewable resources, converts biomass into biofuels, and produces drinking water from sea water.

This class action alleges that, since November 12, 2014, Abengoa and certain of its executive officers and directors have misrepresented the liquidity of Abengoa’s balance sheet in corporate reports filed with the SEC and in conference calls with financial analysts.

According to the complaint, these misrepresentations artificially inflated the price of Abengoa’s ADS. (ADS, or American depository shares, are shares of foreign-based companies that are priced in dollars and traded on American stock exchanges.)

What investors are part of this class action? The class period is currently defined as all persons who purchased Abengoa ADS between November 12, 2014 and August 2, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Abengoa ADS trade on NASDAQ under the symbol “ABGB”.

Procedural Status. The lawsuit was filed on August 10, 2015 and is captioned Francisco v. Abengoa, S.A. et al. It was filed in the New York Southern District Court. Its civil docket number is 1:15cv06279. The lead plaintiff deadline is October 9, 2015.

In its registration statement filed with the SEC on October 4, 2010, Abengoa stated that its operations required substantial capital and that it therefore operated “with a significant amount of indebtedness.” For this reason, Abengoa’s financial health is extremely sensitive to changes in its capital structure.

In conference calls with financial analysts on November 12, 2014, February 23, 2015, and May 14, 2015, Abengoa led the market to believe that it was successfully improving its liquidity and capital structure by executing its plans.

On a conference call on July 31, 2015, Abengoa and announced that it would revise its outlook on its free cash flows. In addition, it revealed that its working capital was not actually improving and announced a plan to sell assets worth 400 million euros. However, an officer stated that “at this point in time, the company has no plan to…tap the capital markets in any manner.”

Just three days later, on August 3, 2015, Abengoa announced that it would hold an extraordinary shareholders meeting to seek approval of two plans: one to issue shares to raise 650 million euros, and another to sell assets worth 500 million euros (100 million more than it had just announced).

As a result of the news, the price of Abengoa’s ADS dropped from its closing price of $11.06 on July 31, 2015 to close at $6.00 on August 4, 2015. This represents an $8.1 billion loss in market capitalization in the span of just two trading days.

Trinet Group (TNET) Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

This lawsuit alleges Trinet misrepresented to investors the accurate costs associated with workers compensation claims. Specifically, that the company was experiencing greater than announced worker compensation costs even after analysts queried executives about the lower-than-industry average cost projections..

Trinet Group, Inc. (Trinet) provides comprehensive human resources (HR) services to small to medium-sized businesses, enabling clients to outsource HR functions such as payroll processing, human capital consulting, employment law compliance and employee benefits, including health and workers compensation insurance and retirement plans. Trinet sells its products through a direct sales force and targets vertical markets, including technology, life sciences, property management, professional, banking and financial, retail, manufacturing and hospitality services.

The company held its initial public offering on March 27, 2014.

What investors are part of this class action ? The class period is currently defined as all persons who purchased Trinet Group Inc. common stock between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Trinet Group, Inc. common stock trades under the symbol “TNET”.

Procedural Status. The lawsuit was filed on August 07, 2015 and is captioned Welgus v. Trinet Group, Inc. et al. It was filed in the California Northern District Court. Its civil docket number is 5:15cv03625. The lead plaintiff deadline is October 6, 2015.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Trinet’s publicly stated financial outlook was based on materially false and misleading statements regarding the company’s financial condition and quarterly and year-end revenue and earnings outlook for fiscal 2014 and 2015, which financial outlook did not have a reasonable basis because Trinet knew or deliberately disregarded and failed to disclose that:

· Trinet’s processes and methodologies for analyzing and accruing claims failed to properly account for historical claims trends;

· Trinet’s forecasting process failed to properly incorporate relevant historical and current claims trends; and

· Trinet was experiencing growing claims trends in medical and workers compensation that negatively affected current and future business prospects.

Following the disclosure of its second quarter fiscal 2015 financial results, Trinet’s stock price declined 38%, from a close of $26.69 per share on August 3, 2015 to a close of $16.33 per share on August 4, 2015, on high trading volume.

AAC Holdings (AAC) Securities Fraud Class action Lawsuit

AAC operates centers throughout the US that provide inpatient treatment for drug and alcohol addiction.

On October 1, 2014, AAC went public and sold five million shares to investors at $15 per share. In its S-1 registration statement, AAC stated that it was “not aware of any legal proceedings the ultimate outcome of which…would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. AAC also noted that it is dependent on its senior management and that if any of them left the company, it could have an adverse effect on the company and its operations. Also, AAC disclosed that if treatment centers in California, Nevada, or Texas were closed, it would also have an adverse effect on the company.

The class action alleges that, at the time, AAC knew that the California Department of Justice was investigating the death of a patient at Forterus, an AAC facility in California. A grand jury was investigating the company president, another current employee, and three former employees, and the California subsidiary for wrongful death.

On July 29, 2015, AAC reported that the grand jury had handed down an indictment in the case, and that AAC’s president (one of those indicted) had stepped down. However, AAC did not reveal that the charges were second-degree murder and dependent adult abuse. The price of AAC’s shares declined by 4%.

On August 3, 2015, AAC filed a Form 10-Q in which it revealed that the indictments were second-degree murder and dependent adult abuse. Stock market analysts also began to issue reports such as, “How Murder Charges Could Hurt AAC Holdings” at www.TheStreet.com. AAC’s stock price fell again, by 14%.

On the following day, Bleecker Street Research published a report entitled “Even More Undisclosed Deaths and the Start of Real Problems” citing seven other deaths at AAC facilities. Bleecker claims that AAC knew about the possibility of criminal charges since an assistant California attorney general filed an affidavit in a civil action in 2013 saying that “criminal charges will be filed.” In reaction to this report, AAC’s share prices declined 39%.

All told, since AAC disclosed that charges were being brought against Menz and its California subsidiaries, AAC’s common stock price fell by $19.18 per share, or 49%, wiping out $153 million in the company’s market capitalization.

What investors are part of this class action? The class period is currently defined as all persons who purchased AAC common stock between October 2, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”). AAC common stock trades on the NYSE under the symbol “AAC”.

Procedural Status. The lawsuit was filed on August 24, 2015 and is captioned Kasper v. AAC Holdings, Inc., et al. It was filed in the Tennessee Middle District Court. Its civil docket number is 3:15cv00923. The lead plaintiff deadline is October 23, 2015.

Pier 1 Imports (PIR) Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

This securities fraud lawsuit alleges that executives at Pier 1 Imports systemically understated the cost to move into online retail channels and systemically overstated forecasted future revenues.

What investors are part of this class action? This case covers all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Pier 1 from December 19, 2013 through February 10, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Pier 1 Imports, Inc. common stock trades on the NYSE under the symbol PIR.

Procedural Status: The lawsuit was filed on August 27, 2015 and is captioned Kenney v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc. et al. It was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Its civil docket number os 3:15cv02798. The lead plaintiff deadline is October 26, 2015.

Pier 1 Imports is a retailer of decorative home furnishings and gifts imported from locations around the globe. The company maintains over 1,000 physical stores in the U.S. and Cananda. In December of 2013, the company announced improvements in its financial condition and its plans to launch a new business initiative aimed at blending e-commerce functions and in-store purchasing to build a unified experience for customers and boost overall sales figures. In subsequent months, however, it is alleged that Pier 1 engaged in the making of false and misleading statements and failed to provide investors and the public with the truth about its true business prospects and financial condition. Specifically, it is alleged that:

on December 19, 2013, the company announced improvements in it financial condition, touting "solid third quarter fiancial results" and the "resounding success" and strong future prospects of its e-commerce initiatives,
in April of 2014, the company promoted additional success of its "1 Pier 1" strategy, citing increased website traffic and sales;
on July 19, 2014, the company issued a press release heralding further sales growth and projecting e-commerce sales of at least $200 million in fiscal year 2015 and $400 million in fiscal year 2016, respectively, and
the company made a series of Form 10-Q filings with the SEC in which it repeated the claims previously made to the public.

However, roughly two weeks before the company's year end, Pier 1 shocked investors iwth the news of reduced financial guidance for the 2015 fiscal year, cited softer than anticipated sales in the prior two months, discussed unplanned supply chain costs and the unexpected "retirement" of veteran Chief Financial Officer Charles H. Turner. These revelations caused shares of Pier 1 to drop to $12.84, a decrease of nearly 25% on trading of over 36 million shares.

The plaintiff in this case alleges that as a result of Pier 1's violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, company stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, causing herself and other Class Members significant losses and damages.

http://www.pier1.com/

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ticker=PIR

Northwest Biotherapuetics (NWBO) Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

This securities class action alleges that executives at Northwest Biotherapeutics overstated or misstated results from ongoing clinical trials of certain therapies and engaged in an undisclosed stock promotion campaign to artificially inflate the company's stock price.

What investors are part of this class action? The class period is currently defined as all persons and entities who purchased the securities of Northwest Biotherapeutics from March 8, 2013 to August 20, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Northwest Biotherapeutics trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "NWBO."

Procedural Status: This lawsuit was filed on August 26, 2015 and is captioned Lerner v. Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al. It was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Its civil docket number is 8:15cv02532. The lead plaintiff deadline is October 26, 2015

The complaint alleges that during the class period, the defendants engaged in a course of conduct through which they knowingly and fraudulently made untrue statements of material facts and omitted other material facts in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. The scheme was designed to deceive investors, artificially inflate the securities' market price and cause the plaintiff and others to purchase those securities, and constituted violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and its Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a) of the Act and also of Section 20(a) of the Act by defendant Linda Powers, the company's CEO, CFO and Principal Accounting Officer.

Specific assertions in support of the plaintiffs claims include:

the company touted initial "positive responses" of patients at MD Anderson Cancer Center to its DCVax-Direct treatment, despite the fact that such claims were based on incomplete, early-stage trial case report forms that had not yet been analyzed by participating doctors,
the use of this data prompted MD Anderson Cancer Center to issue a statement condemning the company for using such preliminary patient information to make unsubstantiated promotional claims in the public arena,
the company embarked on an aggressive stock promotion campaign involving promoters who used false identities and credentials in the areas of healthcare and finance, and
German regulators insisted that the company provide additional information before they would allow the DCVax-L brain cancer treatment trial to continue at certain facilities uninterrupted.

Each of these events transpired without earning any mention in the multiple required Form 10-K and 8-K disclosures filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the relevant period.

Once the news became public the MD Anderson officials had rebuked Northwest Bioptherapuetics' use of such bare-bones data, the company's securities declined $1.79 per share, or roughly 20%, closing at $7.18 per share on June 19, 2014. On July 7, 2014, a published report describing Northwest's use of questionable promoters to boost stock prices caused shares to decline by $0.43, closing at $6.71 on that same day. On August 21, 2015, news broke of the temporary suspension by German regulators of the Phase 3 DCVax-L trial, resulting in a $1.92 per share decline in company securities, with shares closing at $6.96 by day's end.

El Pollo Loco (LOCO) Securities Fraud Class Action Suit

This lawsuit alleges that executives at El Pollo Loco hid from investors the negative impact of rising labor and food costs and the decrease in same store traffic so that insiders could sell millions of dollars of stock at artificially inflated prices.

El Pollo develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants (approximately 172 company-operated and 243 franchised) in the United States.

What investors are part of this class action ? The class period is currently defined as all persons who purchased El Pollo common stock between May 15, 2015 and August 13, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”). El Pollo common stock trades under the symbol “LOCO”.

Procedural Status. The lawsuit was filed on August 24, 2015 and is captioned Turocy v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. et al. It was filed in the California Central District Court. Its civil docket number is 8:15cv01343. The lead plaintiff deadline is October 23, 2015.

The complaint alleges the company concealed the negative impact that certain menu changes and increases in labor costs in California were having on sales growth in a series of false and misleading statements regarding El Pollo sales and its ability to meet projections; including:

· El Pollo made false and misleading statements which caused stock to continue trading at inflated prices and allowed certain controlling shareholders to cash-out share at inflated prices;

· El Pollo reintroduced its value menu, previously removed to increase average orders, while concealing store traffic decline requiring the return of the value menu; and

· El Pollo failed to disclose that store sales during the second quarter of

2015 were 50% lower than the 3%-5% growth the El Pollo executives had led the market to expect.

Following an August 13, 2015 company release announcing second quarter 2015 results and accompanying remarks http://investor.elpolloloco.com/eventdetail.cfm?EventID=163270 detailing second quarter 2015 “system-wide comparable restaurant sales [had only grown] 1.3%, including a 0.5% decrease for company-operated restaurants, and a 2.6% increase for franchised restaurants", El Pollo stock price declined by 20% from its closing price of $18.36 per share on August 13, 2015 to $14.56 per share on August 14, 2015, allegedly 33% below the price where El Pollo executives had just sold $132 million of their own shares and 42% below the Class Period high of $25.37 per share on May 15, 2015.

CaesarStone (CSTE) Securities Fraud CLass Action Lawsuit

CaesarStone manufactures and sells engineered quartz slabs which are used for kitchen countertops, vanity tops, and backsplashes, as well as in other applications.

Shareholders allege that CaesarStone failed to disclose a series of negative news developments and in fact deliberately kept the news from them.

What investors are part of this class action? The class is currently defined as all purchasers of CaesarStone securities between March 25, 2013 and August 18, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”). CaesarStone is based in Israel, and its shares trade on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “CSTE”.

The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, CaesarStone made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose important negative facts, including the following:

That the cost of quartz rose by approximately 20% in 2014, while the company claimed the impact on it was just 4%.
That lab tests showed that CaesarStone’s samples contained less quartz than advertised.
That CaesarStone overstated its consolidated margins, gross margins, and EBITDA.
That CaesarStone has had a growing number of lawsuits filed against it, involving approximately 60 silicosis-related injuries or deaths among its workers and fabricators in Israel, and that Caesarstone did not disclose the extent of and risks posed by these lawsuits.
That recent OSHA warnings about silicosis may have an impact on the opening and costs of a new US facility.
That recent audit reports have revealed audit deficiencies related to revenue and inventory controls.

The above points appeared in an August 19, 2015 report by analyst firm Spruce Point Capital Management. When this information was published, CaesarStone by $3.68 or 7.6%. (ADRs function similarly to shares; they represent a simplified means for Americans to own shares in foreign companies.)

The class action claims that because of these points, CaesarStone’s statements about its business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading.

Procedural Status: The lawsuit was filed on August 25, 2015 and is captioned Tapia-Matos v. CaesarStone Sdot-Yam Ltd. et al. It was filed in the New York Southern District Court. Its civil docket number is 1:15cv06726. The lead plaintiff deadline is October 26, 2015. "

ConforMIS (CFMS) Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

ConforMIS is a medical technology company that develops, manufactures, and sells joint replacement implants and related equipment that are purported to be individually sized and shaped to fit each patient’s individual anatomy. The complaint claims that ConforMIS has sold equipment for more than 30,000 knee implants in the US and Europe.

ConforMIS held its initial public offering (IPO) on July 1, 2015.

On August 31, 2015, ConforMIS announced a voluntary recall of specific serial numbers of patient-specific instrumentation for certain of its knee replacement product systems, in response to recent complaints of moisture on the patient-specific instrumentation. A total of approximately 950 patient-specific instrumentation sets were affected by ConforMIS’s recall, of which approximately 650 had already been used in joint implant surgeries. At the news of the recall, ConforMIS’s stock price dropped by $3.78, or 19.11%.

Patient-specific instrumentation is used during the surgery that places the implants in the body. Its goal is to use advanced medical imaging to create one-time-use instruments that help the surgeon position the implant better and increase the accuracy of the alignment. ConforMIS believes that the moisture on the instrumentation came from the sterilization process, and that the joint implants themselves were not affected.

The class action alleges that ConforMIS made false or misleading statements in connection with its IPO and subsequent filings with the SEC, because ConforMIS knew that its manufacturing processes were flawed and that a number of its products were defective.

What investors are part of this class action? The class period is currently defined as all persons who purchased ConforMIS securities (1) based on ConforMIS’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued for its initial public offering on or about July 1, 2015, or (2) on the open market between July 1, 2015 and August 28, 2015, inclusive (the Class Period). ConforMIS stock trades on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol “CFMS”.

Procedural Status. The lawsuit was filed on September 3, 2015 and is captioned Klein v. ConforMIS, Inc. et al. It was filed in the Massachusettes District Court. Its civil docket number is 1:15cv13295. The lead plaintiff deadline is November 2, 2015.

Spectranetics (SPNC) Securities Class Action Lawsuit

On August 27, 2015, Michael Ellis filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the Colorado Springs medical device company Spectranetics Corporation distorted their revenue earnings, leading to artificially inflated stock prices and negatively affecting the company’s shareholders.

The class of the suit consists of all those who purchased Spectranetics securities between February 19, 2015 and July 23, 2015, and who were damaged by the actions of the defendant. Excluded from the class are the officers and directors of Spectranetics, their legal counsel, and immediate family members.

The plaintiff estimates hundreds or possibly thousands are members of this particular class.

The plaintiff alleges Spectranetics was deceptive in several ways, failing to disclose information to investors and making false or misleading statements. The complaints include that Spectranetics purportedly was suffering losses due to growing competition, and that the company lacked a sufficient sales force. Thus, Spectranetics was underperforming. Additionally, the suit asserts Spectranetics lacked adequate controls, and its representatives made false and/or misleading statements about its prospects and business operations.

In particular, Spectranetics faced heavy competition for its drug-coated balloon products, causing unusually heavy declines per share through the class action period.

Spectranetics has lowered its forecast for the remainder of 2015.

Procedural Status. The lawsuit was filed on August 27, 2015 and is captioned Michael Ellis v. The Spectranetics Corporation, Scott Drake, and Guy A. Childs. It was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Its civil docket number is 1:15cv01857. The lead plaintiff deadline is October 26, 2015.

Super Micro Computer (SCMI) Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit

Dale Deason has filed a class action suit against the San Jose, California company Super Micro Computer, Inc. The plaintiff is filing individually and on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Super Micro Computer between September 15, 2014 and August 31, 2015. Super Micro Computer common stock trades under the symbol SMCI.

According to the complaint, Super Micro Computer is a company that builds and distributes high performance server solutions centered on modular and open-standard architecture. During the class period, the complaint alleges Super Micro Computer made false and/or misleading statements, and also did not disclose factual adverse information about the company’s business, operations, and prospects.

In particular, the suit includes allegations of Super Micro Computer recording false expenses in its financial reports, which led to erroneous reported net income. The complaint purports a lack of adequate internal financial controls and providing materially false and misleading financial statements.

This securities fraud class action suit alleges that Super Micro Computers substantially misstated expenses for at least five fiscal quarters.

On August 31, 2015, Super Micro Computer issued a statement that the company was not able to file its annual report for the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2015 within the prescribed time period. The company acknowledged “recently discovered” abnormalities in its marketing expenses, and they are internally investigating the matter.

Procedural Status. The lawsuit was filed on September 4, 2015 and is captioned Dale Deason v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., Charles Liang, and Howard Hideshima. It was filed in the United States District Court Northern District of California. Its civil docket number is 5:15-cv-04049-EJD. The lead plaintiff deadline is November 3, 2015.