According to the law firm press release, the complaint charges MAKO and certain of its officers and executives with violations of the Exchange Act. MAKO is a medical device company that markets its advanced robotic arm solution and orthopedic implants for orthopedic procedures called MAKOplasty. The Company generates revenue from: (1) unit sales of the Company’s RIO Robotic Arm Interactive Orthopedic (“RIO”) system and MAKOplasty applications (collectively, the “RIO system”), including associated instrumentation, installation services, and training; (2) sales of implants and disposable products utilized in MAKOplasty procedures; and (3) sales of warranty and maintenance services.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financials and future business prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company was poised to suffer a wider first quarter loss as it was experiencing higher costs and slower sales of its RIO systems; (ii) that utilization rates of the Company’s RIO systems were dropping; (iii) that the Company’s 2012 outlook provided at the start of the Class Period lacked a reasonable basis when made; and (iv) that, based on the above, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company or its outlook.
On May 7, 2012, the Company announced its first quarter 2012 financial results. Although revenue rose from the first quarter 2011, it dropped approximately 40% from the fourth quarter 2011 and missed analysts’ consensus expectations by approximately 20%.
As a result, the price of MAKO common stock dropped $15.13 per share, or nearly 37%, to close at $26.27 per share on May 8, 2012, on unusual trading volume of more than 13 million shares traded.
On August 2, 2012, the Court issued an order consolidating actions, appointing lead plaintiffs, and approving the selection of lead counsel.
On September 12, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.
On May 15, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs failed to file by the deadline, thus the Court issued an Order dismissing this case with prejudice on June 10.
On June 14, the Court issued a final judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.