Company and Case Information

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors


Register


_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School


Lime Energy Co.
Summary: According to the law firm press release, Lime Energy is a provider of clean energy solutions. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Lime Energy’s business, operations and financial condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was improperly recording revenue; (2) as a result, the Company’s revenue and financial results were overstated; (3) as such, the Company’s financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5), as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 17, 2012, the Company disclosed that the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Lime Energy had determined that the Company’s consolidated financial statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 10-K for the periods ended December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011 and the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012, may no longer be relied upon. According to the Company, the Audit Committee made that determination based on the results of a partial internal review conducted by the Company’s management and concluded Friday, July 13, 2012.

The Company further indicated that, based on the results of that partial internal review, the Company’s management and the Audit Committee believe that some portion of the Company’s revenue was improperly recorded Lime Energy indicated that the misreporting may potentially require restatement of its previously issued financial statements. Moreover, the Company stated that, “[i]n some cases, it appears that non-existent revenue may have been recorded” and that “[i]n other cases, it appears that revenue may have been recorded earlier than it should have been.”

As a result of this news, shares of the Company declined $0.91 per share, or 44.83%, to close on July 17, 2012, at $1.12 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 1700
Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Lime Energy Co.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: LIME
COMPANY WEBSITE:

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Jeffrey Satterfield, et al. v. Lime Energy Co., et al.
 COURT: N.D. Illinois  DOCKET NUMBER: 12-CV-05704
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. John F. Grady
 DATE FILED: 07/20/2012  SOURCE: 
 CLASS PERIOD START: 05/13/2010  CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2012
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
      1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067
       (voice) 310.201.915, (fax) 310. 201-916, info@glancylaw.com
  • Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (Chicago)
      10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505, Chicago, IL, 60603
       (voice) 312.377.1181, (fax) 312.377.1181,
  • The Lin Law Firm
      2705 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., Suite 398, Diamond Bar, CA, 91765
       (voice) (909) 595-5522, (fax) (909) 595-5519,
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  3

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 07/20/2012
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 07/20/2012

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Case Name and/or Number: 
    Type:  Date on the document: 

    WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
    The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
    Go to Search  page | Go to Case Index  page | Back to Top