According to the complaint filed February 23, 2011, on February 16, 2011, Itron announced that it was restating its financial results for the quarters that had ended on March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2010. According to the Company, Itron had made these revisions because the Company had improperly recognized revenue on a contract due to an extended warranty obligation. Further, the Company’s restatement of its financial results reduced total revenue for the first nine months of 2010 by $6.1 million and both Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) and non-GAAP diluted EPS were reduced by 11 cents over this same time period.
On this news, shares of Itron declined $6.33 per share, 9.95%, to close on February 17, 2011, at $57.29 per share, on unusually heavy volume. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company improperly recognized revenue on a contract due to an extended warranty obligation; (2) that, as a result, the Company’s revenue and financial results were overstated during the Class Period; (3) that the Company’s financial results were not prepared in accordance with GAAP; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.
On June 23, 2011, the Court issued an order appointing Royal Oak Retirement System as lead plaintiff and approving Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP was appointed as liaison counsel.
On August 22, 2011, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for violations of Section s 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
On September 11, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.