Securities & Investment Fraud

iRobot Corporation Securities Class Litigation

Introduction

Securities fraud class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the stock of iRobot Corporation (“iRobot” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: IRBT). If you purchased or otherwise acquired iRobot stock between November 21, 2016 and October 22, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”), you may move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 23, 2019.

You may retain Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.  Recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms, Lieff Cabraser is committed to safeguarding the rights of investors and upholding the integrity of the market.  We have significant experience and a successful track record of representing institutional and individual investors in securities and financial fraud litigation.

iRobot investors may choose to have Lieff Cabraser review their claim by completing the contact form below.  You can also call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358 to discuss the litigation.

Background on the iRobot Securities Class Litigation

iRobot is a global consumer robot company that designs and builds robots to assist with household tasks.  iRobot’s most popular product is its Roomba line of autonomous robotic vacuum cleaners.

The actions allege that, throughout the Class Period, iRobot reported double-digit revenue growth, which it attributed to increasing demand for its Roomba products, and expanded gross margin due to distributor acquisitions, greater brand awareness and technological innovation.  Unbeknownst to investors, iRobot was engaging in channel-stuffing in order to inflate its sales and revenues figures, and had acquired two of its largest distributors in order to facilitate and conceal this deceptive practice.

On April 23, 2019, after the close of trading, iRobot announced that its quarterly revenues were below analyst expectations and revealed surging inventory levels.  Specifically, iRobot reported days in inventory (“DII”) of 140 for the three months ended March 30, 2019, compared to DII of 101 for the same period in the year prior.  Inventory also rose to $181 million as of March 30, 2019, up from $112 million in April 2018. Following this news, the price of iRobot’s stock fell $30.15 per share, or more than 23%, to close at $100.42 per share on April 24, 2019.

On July 23, 2019, after the close of trading, iRobot cut its full-year fiscal 2019 revenue guidance as well as its earnings per share guidance.  Following this news, iRobot’s stock price fell from $15.12 per share, or nearly 17%, to close at $74.51 per share on July 24, 2019.

On October 22, 2019, after the close of trading, iRobot reported its third quarter 2019 financial results and cut the high end of its revenue expectations for the year.  iRobot said it rolled back price increases after a “suboptimal” customer response.  In addition, iRobot reported increased inventory levels once again, with third quarter 2019 ending inventory of $248 million or 149 DII compared to the $161 million or 113 DII a year prior. Following this news, iRobot’s stock price fell $4.97 per share, or 9.2%, to close at $49.06 per share on October 23, 2019.

Shareholder Contact Form


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

II. TRANSACTIONS IN IROBOT SECURITIES

Number of shares of iRobot stock held immediately before the start of Class Period on November 21, 2016:

From November 21, 2016 through October 22, 2019, inclusive, I made the following transactions in iRobot stock:

PURCHASES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

During the 90 days after October 22, 2019, I made the following transactions in iRobot stock:

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

Comments & questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for fourteen years.  In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.”  Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm’s “laser focus” and noting that our firm routinely finds itself “facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world.”  In late 2016, Benchmark Litigation named Lieff Cabraser one of the “Top 10 Plaintiffs’ Firms in America.”

Under Armour Inc. Securities Class Litigation

Securities and Financial Fraud

Introduction

Securities fraud class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Under Armour Inc. (“Under Armour” or the “Company”) (NYSE: UA; UAA).  If you purchased or otherwise acquired Under Armour securities between August 3, 2016 and November 1, 2019 inclusive (the “Class Period”), you may move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than January 6, 2020.

You may retain Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.  Recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms, Lieff Cabraser is committed to safeguarding the rights of investors and upholding the integrity of the market.  We have significant experience and a successful track record of representing institutional and individual investors in securities and financial fraud litigation.

Under Armour investors may choose to have Lieff Cabraser review their claim by completing the contact form below.  You can also call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358 to discuss the litigation.

Background on the Under Armour Securities Class Litigation

Under Armour, based in Baltimore, Maryland, develops, markets, and distributes branded performance apparel, footwear, and accessories for men, women, and youth.

The action alleges that during the Class Period, Under Armour made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Under Armour improperly shifted sales from quarter to quarter to keep pace with their long-running year-over-year 20% net revenue growth; (ii) the Company had been subject to federal accounting probes since at least July 2017; and (iii) as a result, defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On November 3, 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) are investigating whether Under Armour shifted sales from quarter to quarter to appear healthier.  On the following day, Under Armour confirmed that it was under DOJ and SEC investigations and has been responding to requests for documents and information regarding certain of its accounting practices and related disclosures, beginning with submissions to the SEC in July 2017.  Following this news, the price of Under Armour Class A common stock fell $4.00 per share, or nearly 18.9%, to close at $17.14 per share, and its Class C common stock fell $3.47 per share, or 18.3%, to close at $15.44 per share.

Shareholder Contact Form


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

II. TRANSACTIONS IN UNDER ARMOUR SECURITIES

Number of shares of Under Armour held immediately before the start of Class Period on August 3, 2016:

From August 3, 2016 through November 1, 2019, inclusive, I made the following transactions in Under Armour shares:

PURCHASES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

During the 90 days after November 1, 2019, I made the following transactions in Under Armour shares:

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

Comments & questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for fourteen years.  In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.”  Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm’s “laser focus” and noting that our firm routinely finds itself “facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world.”  In late 2016, Benchmark Litigation named Lieff Cabraser one of the “Top 10 Plaintiffs’ Firms in America.”

The Chemours Company Securities Class Litigation

Securities and Financial Fraud

Introduction

Securities fraud class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of The Chemours Company Inc. (“Chemours” or the “Company”) (NYSE: CC).  If you purchased or otherwise acquired Chemours common stock from February 16, 2017 through August 1, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”), you may move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than December 9, 2019.

You may retain Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.  Recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms, Lieff Cabraser is committed to safeguarding the rights of investors and upholding the integrity of the market.  We have significant experience and a successful track record of representing institutional and individual investors in securities and financial fraud litigation.

Chemours investors may choose to have Lieff Cabraser review their claim by completing the contact form below.  You can also call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358 to discuss the litigation

Background on the Chemours Securities Class Litigation

Chemours, incorporated and headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware, is a spin-off of the E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) and produces a wide range of industrial and specialty chemicals products for various markets.  Chemours’s stock began trading as publicly traded company in 2015. The spin-off was completed pursuant to a Separation Agreement that required Chemours to indemnify DuPont for historic environmental liabilities, including those related to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), toxic chemicals that have since become the basis for environment regulatory actions, governmental prosecutions, personal injury lawsuits, and extensive remediation and other clean-up efforts.

The complaint alleges that Chemours misled investors by misrepresenting that it had correctly accounted and accumulated reserves for its environmental liabilities, that the likelihood of costs exceeding accrued amounts was “remote,” and that, in any event, added costs would not be material.  Chemours also guaranteed investors that its “policies, standards and procedures are properly designed to avoid unreasonable risk of harm to people and the environment,” and that its “handling, manufacture, use and disposal of hazardous substances are in accordance with applicable environmental laws and regulations.” As a result of these misrepresentations, Chemours shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

On June 28, 2019, the Delaware Chancery Court unsealed a complaint that Chemours had filed against Dupont alleging that its spin-off from DuPont was part a deliberate plan by DuPont to rid itself of significant exposures incurred through decades of PFAS discharge and to unload that responsibility onto Chemours.  Following this news, the price of Chemours’s stock price fell $2.37 per share, or nearly 10%, from its closing price of $24.90 per share on June 27, 2019 to close at $22.53 per share on July 1, 2019.  On August 1, 2019, after the market closed, Chemours announced lower guidance for 2019.  On the following day, it filed its second quarter of 2019 Form 10-Q and revealed that its estimated liabilities were far greater than it had previously represented.  On this news, Chemours’s stock price declined another 19% to close at $14.69 per share on August 2, 2019 on unusually high volume eliminating over $560 million in shareholder value.

Shareholder Contact Form


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

II. TRANSACTIONS IN CHEMOURS SECURITIES

Number of shares of Chemours common stock held immediately before the start of Class Period on February 16, 2017:

From February 16, 2017 through August 1, 2019 inclusive, I made the following transactions in Chemours common stock:

PURCHASES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

During the 90 days after August 1, 2019, I made the following transactions in Chemours common stock:

PURCHASES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

Comments & questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.” Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm’s “laser focus” and noting that our firm routinely finds itself “facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world.” In late 2016, Benchmark Litigation named Lieff Cabraser one of the “Top 10 Plaintiffs’ Firms in America.”

Myriad Genetics Inc., Securities Class Litigation

Stock price chart

Introduction

Securities fraud class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Myriad Genetics Inc., (“Myriad” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: MYGN). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Myriad securities from September 2, 2016 through August 13, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”), you may move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than November 26, 2019.

You may retain Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms, Lieff Cabraser is committed to safeguarding the rights of investors and upholding the integrity of the market. We have significant experience and a successful track record of representing institutional and individual investors in securities and financial fraud litigation.

Myriad investors may choose to have Lieff Cabraser review their claim by completing the contact form below. You can also call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358 to discuss the litigation.

Background on the Myriad Securities Class Litigation

Myriad, incorporated and headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, is a molecular diagnostic company that develops and markets predictive, personalized, and prognostic medicine tests. Myriad offers, among other products, GeneSight, a DNA genotyping test to aid psychotropic drug selection for depressed patients, and Foresight, a test for future parents to assess their risk of passing on a recessive genetic condition to their offspring.

The action alleges that during the Class Period, Myriad misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (1) GeneSight lacked sufficient evidence or information to support the tests in their current form and their purported benefits; (2) the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) had requested that Myriad make changes to GeneSight and questioned the validity of the test’s purported benefits; (3) the Company had been in discussions with the FDA regarding the changes to GeneSight that the agency requested; and (4) Myriad’s acquisition of Counsyl, Inc. and its product Foresight had caused the Company to risk receiving lower reimbursement for its expanded carrier screening tests, which could potentially, and did in fact result in a material negative impact on Myriad’s revenue.

On August 13, 2019, Myriad revealed that the FDA requested changes to the GeneSight test offering and that the Company has “been in ongoing discussions with the FDA regarding its request.” In addition, Myriad disclosed that the FDA had questioned whether the validity of GeneSight’s purported benefits had been established and that the agency had increasingly questioned the claims of marketed genetics tests such as GeneSight since at least late 2018. On this news, the price of Myriad common stock fell $19.05 per share, or 42.76%, from a closing price of on $44.55 on August 13, 2019, to close at $25.50 per share on August 14, 2019, on extremely heavy trading volume.

Shareholder Contact Form


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

II. TRANSACTIONS IN MYRIAD SECURITIES

Number of shares of Myriad held immediately before the start of Class Period on September 2, 2016:

From September 2, 2016 through August 13, 2019, inclusive, I made the following transactions in Myriad shares:

PURCHASES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

During the 90 days after August 13, 2019, I made the following transactions in Myriad shares:

SALES

Date
No. of Shares
Price

show more rows

Comments & questions:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.” Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm’s “laser focus” and noting that our firm routinely finds itself “facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world.” In late 2016, Benchmark Litigation named Lieff Cabraser one of the “Top 10 Plaintiffs’ Firms in America.”

Wells Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation

Securities and Financial Fraud

Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel for the Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado, which along with the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, are court-appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs in this consolidated shareholder derivative action.  Co-Lead Plaintiffs allege that, since at least 2011, the Board and executive management of Wells Fargo & Company (“Wells Fargo”) knew or consciously disregarded that Wells Fargo employees were illicitly creating millions of deposit and credit card accounts for their customers, without those customers’ consent, in an attempt to drive up “cross-selling,” i.e., selling complementary Wells Fargo banking products to prospective or existing customers.

Revelations regarding the scheme, and the defendants’ knowledge or blatant disregard of it, have deeply damaged Wells Fargo’s reputation and cost it millions of dollars in regulatory fines and lost business. In May 2017, the court largely denied defendants’ motion to dismiss Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ amended complaint.  In October 2017, the court again denied a second round of motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

A proposed $320 million settlement (the “Settlement”) has been reached in this derivative action.  On February 28, 2019, Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement. The benefits to Wells Fargo of the proposed Settlement include (i) monetary consideration of $240 million paid to Wells Fargo by the defendants’ insurers; (ii) agreement and acknowledgement that facts alleged in the derivative action were a significant factor in causing certain corporate governance changes undertaken by Wells Fargo, which include improvement to Wells Fargo’s internal controls, internal reporting, and expanded and enhanced oversight of risk management by the Board of Directors (the “Corporate Governance Reforms”); and (iii) agreement and acknowledgement that facts alleged in the derivative action were a significant factor in causing certain remedial steps with respect to compensation reductions and forfeitures undertaken by Wells Fargo (the “Clawbacks”).  As part of the Settlement, the parties agreed that the Corporate Governance Reforms and the Clawbacks have a value to Wells Fargo of $80 million, for a total Settlement value to Wells Fargo of $320 million.

On May 14, 2019, the court preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement.  The proposed Settlement is subject to final court approval, and a final fairness hearing will be held on August 1, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.  For more information on the Wells Fargo Derivative Settlement, please visit www.wellsfargoderivativesettlement.com.

The case is In re Wells Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-05541 (N.D. Cal.).

Important Documents Related to the Case

Notice

Settlement Agreement

Preliminary Approval

Final Approval

Key Case Filings

 

BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Class Litigation

Stock price chart

Lieff Cabraser serves as lead counsel for court-appointed lead plaintiff, Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (“HMEPS”), in this securities fraud class action against BofI Holding, Inc. and certain of its senior officers. The action charges defendants with issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about BofI’s business, operations, and performance.

In September 2016, the court largely denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in November 2016 in order to remedy the few claims that had been dismissed. In May 2017, the court denied in significant part defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint.

The case is Houston Municipal Employees Pension System v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-02324 (S.D. Cal.). A copy of the consolidated amended complaint is available here.

If you would like more information about the litigation, or have information relevant to the lawsuit, please use the form below or contact Richard Texier of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358 or at rtexier@lchb.com.

Contact us


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Comments & questions:

We produce a free e-mail Civil Justice Newsletter three to four times a year, and distribute it to persons who have contacted us and wish to receive the newsletter.

Please sign me up for the Lieff Cabraser Civil Justice Newsletter:



About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.” Best Lawyers and U.S. News named Lieff Cabraser as a “Law Firm of the Year” for 2016, and Benchmark Litigation included our firm in its 2016 “Top 10 Plaintiffs Firms” listing.

Petrobras Securities Litigation

Stock price chart

Janus Overseas Fund, et al. v. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras, et al., No. 1:15-cv-10086-JSR (S.D.N.Y.); Dodge & Cox Global Stock Fund, et al. v. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras, et al., No. 1:15-cv-10111-JSR (S.D.N.Y.).

Lieff Cabraser represented several funds managed by Janus and several funds managed by Dodge & Cox in individual securities cases arising from the massive fraud at Petrobras, a state-run semi-public energy and oil-production company headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Plaintiffs sought recovery under the federal securities laws for damages they suffered on transactions in Petrobras securities during the period December 29, 2010 through July 28, 2015 (the “Relevant Period”), due to a pervasive and long-running scheme of bribery and corruption at Petrobras.

Plaintiffs alleged that beginning around 2005 and continuing through the Relevant Period, the Company engaged in a scheme whereby contractors paid bribes to Petrobras executives and others in exchange for the award of lucrative oil and gas construction contracts. Some of the bribes were passed on to Brazilian politicians and political parties. The Company then paid the contractors inflated amounts under the contracts in order to repay them for the bribes. When the fraud was finally revealed beginning in May 2014, it sent shockwaves through the Brazilian government and economy, and caused Petrobras’s market capitalization to plummet. Authorities estimate the scheme has diverted up to, or more than, $28 billion from the Company’s coffers.

Lieff Cabraser’s cases were part of consolidated proceedings before Judge Jed S. Rakoff in the Southern District of New York. The parties reached settlements in the cases in October of 2016.

Flotek Industries, Inc. Securities Class Litigation

Stock price chart

Introduction

Securities fraud class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors in Flotek Industries, Inc. (“Flotek” or the “Company”) (NYSE: FTK). If you purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Flotek between October 23, 2014 and November 19, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”), you may move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than January 11, 2016.

You may retain Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the actions. Recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms, Lieff Cabraser is committed to safeguarding the rights of investors and upholding the integrity of the market. We have significant experience and a successful track record of representing institutional and individual investors in securities and financial fraud litigation.

Flotek investors may choose to have Lieff Cabraser review their claim by completing the contact form below. You can also call Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser at 1-800-541-7358 to discuss the litigation.

Background on the Flotek Class Litigation

Flotek is a global diversified, technology-driven company that develops and supplies oilfield products, services and equipment to the oil, gas and mining industries, and other products that are sold in consumer and industrial markets.

The actions allege that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Flotek’s proprietary software application FracMax had data and process errors; (2) the reported production data from FracMax for three of the wells in the Company’s New York City Investor Presentation on September 11, 2015 were inaccurate; and (3) an application from the Company claiming to be FracMax available in the Apple iTunes Store does not work.

On November 9, 2015, the firm Bronte Capital published a report on Flotek asserting, among other things, that: (1) the production data of four proximate wells in Texas set forth in Flotek’s September 11, 2015 presentation to investors did not match the data of the Texas Railroad Commission; and (2) a version of FracMax available in the Apple iTunes Store does not work. On this news, the price of Flotek shares fell $3.50 per share, or 19.34%, from its closing price on November 6, 2015 to close at $14.60 per share on the next trading day, November 9, 2015, on extremely heavy trading volume.

On November 10, 2015, the Company issued a press release acknowledging data and process errors in its FracMax database and the understatement of production data in Company’s presentation on September 11, 2015. On this news, the price of Flotek shares fell $5.56 per share, or 38.1%, from its closing price on November 9, 2015, to close at $9.04 per share on November 10, 2015, on extremely heavy trading volume.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation’s top plaintiffs’ law firms for thirteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms “representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs’ bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.” Best Lawyers and U.S. News have named Lieff Cabraser as a “Law Firm of the Year” for each year the publications have given this award to law firms.

National Century Financial Enterprises Financial Fraud

Stock price chart

Result: Settlements valued at over 70% of client’s $89 million in losses
Year: 2011

In re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. Investment Fraud Litigation

Lieff Cabraser attorneys Steven E. Fineman and Michael J. Miarmi served as outside counsel for the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Teachers’ Retirement System for the City of New York, New York City Police Pension Fund, and New York City Fire Department Pension Fund in this multidistrict litigation arising from fraud in connection with NCFE’s issuance of notes backed by healthcare receivables.

The New York City Pension Funds suffered approximately $89 million in losses resulting from the massive NCFE fraud. Having successfully resolved their claims against numerous parties, the Funds maintain claims against several NCFE founders. To date, the Funds have recovered approximately 70% of their losses, primarily through settlements achieved on their behalf by Lieff Cabraser.

Qwest Communications International Direct Securities Fraud Litigation

Stock price chart

Result: Recoveries for clients in direct action were 13 times what they would have received in class case
Year: 2007

In re Qwest Communications International, Inc. Securities Fraud and “ERISA” Litigation (No. II)

Lieff Cabraser represented the New York State Common Retirement Fund, Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado, Denver Employees’ Retirement Plan, San Francisco Employees’ Retirement System, and over thirty BlackRock managed mutual funds in individual securities fraud actions (“opt out” cases) against Qwest Communications International, Inc., Philip F. Anschutz, former co-chairman of the Qwest board of directors, and other senior executives at Qwest.

In each action, the plaintiffs charged defendants with massively overstating Qwest’s publicly-reported growth, revenues, earnings, and earnings per share from 1999 through 2002. The cases were filed in the wake of a $400 million settlement of a securities fraud class action against Qwest that was announced in early 2006.

The cases brought by Lieff Cabraser’s clients settled in October 2007 for recoveries totaling more than $85 million, or more than 13 times what the clients would have received had they remained in the class.

Alex Brown Management Services Securities Fraud Lawsuits

Stock price chart

Result: Confidential settlement
Year: 2006

Albert, et al. v. Alex. Brown Management Services, Inc., et al.; Baker, et al. v. Alex. Brown Management Services, Inc., et al. Securities Fraud Litigation

In May 2004, on behalf of investors in two investment funds controlled, managed and operated by Deutsche Bank and advised by DC Investment Partners, Lieff Cabraser filed lawsuits for alleged fraudulent conduct that resulted in an aggregate loss of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The suits named as defendants Deutsche Bank and its subsidiaries Alex Brown Management Services and Deutsche Bank Securities, members of the funds’ management committee, as well as DC Investments Partners and two of its principals. Among the plaintiff-investors were 70 high net worth individuals. In the fall of 2006, the cases settled by confidential agreement.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch Merger Securities Cases

Stock price chart

Result: Confidential settlement
Year: 2013

In two cases — DiNapoli, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., No. 10 CV 5563 (S.D.N.Y.) and Schwab S&P 500 Index Fund, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 11-cv- 07779 PKC (S.D.N.Y.) — Lieff Cabraser sought recovery on a direct, non-class basis for losses that a number of public pension funds and mutual funds incurred as a result of Bank of America’s alleged misrepresentations and concealment of material facts in connection with its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.

Lieff Cabraser represented the New York State Common Retirement Fund, the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, the Public Employees’ Retirement Association of Colorado, and fourteen mutual funds managed by Charles Schwab Investment Management. Both cases settled in 2013 on confidential terms favorable for our clients.

AOL Time Warner Alaska Attorney General Securities Fraud Class Action

Stock price chart

Result: Clients recovered 50 times what they would have received in a class case
Year: 2006

Alaska State Department of Revenue, et al. v. America Online, Inc., et al. Securities Fraud Litigation

In December 2006, a $50 million settlement was reached in a securities fraud action brought by the Alaska State Department of Revenue, Alaska State Pension Investment Board and Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation against defendants America Online, Inc. (“AOL”), Time Warner Inc. (formerly known as AOL Time Warner (“AOLTW”)), and Historic TW Inc. When the action was filed, the Alaska Attorney General estimated total losses at $70 million.

The recovery on behalf of Alaska was approximately 50 times what the state would have received as a member of the class in the federal securities class action settlement. The lawsuit, filed in 2004 in Alaska State Court, alleged that defendants misrepresented advertising revenues and growth of AOL and AOLTW along with the number of AOL subscribers, which artificially inflated the stock price of AOL and AOLTW to the detriment of Alaska State funds.

The Alaska Department of Law retained Lieff Cabraser to lead the litigation efforts under its direction. “We appreciate the diligence and expertise of our counsel in achieving an outstanding resolution of the case,” said Mark Morones, spokesperson for the Department of Law, following the announcement of the settlement.

Brooks Automation, Inc.

Stock price chart

Result: $7.75 million settlement
Year: 2008

In re Brooks Automation, Inc. Securities Fraud Litigation

Lieff Cabraser served as Court-Appointed Lead Counsel for lead plaintiff the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association and co-plaintiff the Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System in a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Brooks Automation securities.

Plaintiffs charged that Brooks Automation and its senior corporate officers and directors violated federal securities laws by backdating company stock options over a six year period, and failed to disclose the scheme in publicly filed financial statements. Subsequent to Lieff Cabraser’s filing of a consolidated amended complaint in this action, both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice filed complaints against the Company’s former C.E.O., Robert Therrien, related to the same alleged practices.

In October 2008, the Court approved a $7.75 million settlement of the action.

FundAmerica

Stock price chart

Result: $13 million settlement
Year: 1990

Nguyen v. FundAmerica Securities Fraud Litigation

Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel in this securities/RICO/tort action seeking an injunction against alleged unfair “pyramid” marketing practices and compensation to participants.

The District Court certified a nationwide class for injunctive relief and damages on a mandatory basis and enjoined fraudulent overseas transfers of assets. The Bankruptcy Court permitted class proof of claims. Lieff Cabraser obtained dual District Court and Bankruptcy Court approval of settlements distributing over $13 million in FundAmerica assets to class members.

Network Associates

Stock price chart

Result: $30 million settlement
Year: 2001

In re Network Associates, Inc. Securities Fraud Litigation

Following a competitive bidding process, the Court appointed Lieff Cabraser as Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and the class of investors. The complaint alleged that Network Associates improperly accounted for acquisitions in order to inflate its stock price. In May 2001, the Court granted approval to a $30 million settlement.

In reviewing the Network Associates settlement, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Alsup observed,

[T]he class was well served at a good price by excellent counsel … We have class counsel who’s one of the most foremost law firms in the country in both securities law and class actions. And they have a very excellent reputation for the conduct of these kinds of cases and their experience and views…

Media Vision

Stock price chart

Result: $31 million settlement
Year: 2003

In re Media Vision Technology Securities Fraud Litigation

Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action lawsuit which alleged that certain Media Vision officers, outside directors, accountants, and underwriters engaged in a fraudulent scheme to inflate the company’s earnings, and issued false and misleading public statements about the company’s finances, earnings and profits.

By 1998, the Court had approved several partial settlements with many of Media Vision’s officers and directors, accountants and underwriters which totaled $31 million. The settlement proceeds have been distributed to eligible class members. The evidence that Lieff Cabraser developed in the civil case led prosecutors to commence an investigation and ultimately file criminal charges against Media Vision’s former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

The civil action against Media Vision’s CEO and CFO was stayed pending the criminal proceedings against them. In the criminal proceedings, the CEO pled guilty on several counts, and the CFO was convicted at trial. In October, 2003, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and entered a judgment in favor of the class against these two defendants in the amount of $188 million.

California Micro Devices

Stock price chart

Result: $31 million settlement
Year: 2001

In re California Micro Devices Securities Fraud Litigation

Lieff Cabraser served as Liaison Counsel for the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, and the class they represented.

Prior to 2001, the Court approved $19 million in settlements. In May 2001, the Court approved an additional settlement of $12 million, which, combined with the earlier settlements, provided class members an almost complete return on their losses.

The settlement with the company included multi-million dollar contributions by the former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.

Commenting in 2001 on Lieff Cabraser’s work in Cal Micro Devices, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker stated,

It is highly unusual for a class action in the securities area to recover anywhere close to the percentage of loss that has been recovered here, and counsel and the lead plaintiffs have done an admirable job in bringing about this most satisfactory conclusion of the litigation.

One year later, in a related proceeding and in response to the statement that the class had received nearly a 100% recovery, Judge Walker observed,

That’s pretty remarkable. In these cases, 25 cents on the dollar is considered to be a magnificent recovery, and this is [almost] a hundred percent.

FPI/Agretech

Stock price chart

Result: $32 million settlement
Year: 1994

In re FPI/Agretech Securities Fraud Litigation

We served as Lead Class Counsel for investors defrauded in a “Ponzi-like” limited partnership investment scheme. The Court approved $15 million in partial, pretrial settlements.

At trial, the jury returned a $24 million verdict, which included $10 million in punitive damages, against non-settling defendant Arthur Young & Co. for its knowing complicity and active and substantial assistance in the marketing and sale of the worthless limited partnership offerings.

The appellate court affirmed the compensatory damages award and remanded the case for a retrial on punitive damages. In 1994, the Court approved a $17 million settlement with Ernst & Young, the successor to Arthur Young & Co.

Cablevision Systems Corp. Securities Fraud Derivative Litigation

Stock price chart

Result: $34.4 million settlement
Year: 2008

In re Cablevision Systems Corp. Derivative Securities Fraud Litigation

Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in a shareholders’ derivative action against the board of directors and numerous officers of Cablevision.

The suit alleged that defendants intentionally manipulated stock option grant dates to Cablevision employees between 1997 and 2002 in order to enrich certain officer and director defendants at the expense of Cablevision and Cablevision shareholders. According to the complaint, Defendants made it appear as if stock options were granted earlier than they actually were in order to maximize the value of the grants.

In September 2008, the Court granted final approval to a $34.4 million settlement of the action. Over $24 million of the settlement was contributed directly by individual defendants who either received backdated options or participated in the backdating activity.