According to a press release dated August 12, 2010, the lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Alphatec overstated the positive impact its acquisition of Scient’x, S.A. would have on its earnings and revenue. According to the lawsuit, the Company was motivated to artificially inflate its stock price in order to obtain a higher price in a secondary stock offering that closed on April 21, 2010. The lawsuit further alleges that on August 5, 2010, the Company dramatically lowered its projected financial results causing Alphatec’s stock price to fall 46 percent in heavy trading.
On January 19, 2011, Judge Roger T. Benitez granted the motion to appoint the Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as lead counsel.
On February 17, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint naming company directors and company underwriters as additional named defendants in the action. According to the Amended Class Action Complaint, this is a class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Alphatec. Lead Plaintiff seeks remedies (1) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Alphatec common stock issued pursuant or traceable to the February 12, 2010 Registration Statement and April 16, 2010 Prospectus incorporated therein and were damaged thereby; and (2) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Alphatec between April 16, 2010 and August 5, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”). On February 24, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint.
The defendants filed three motions to dismiss the Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint on April 18, 2011.
On March 21, 2012, the Court entered an Order granting defendants' Motions to Dismiss with Leave to Amend. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint on April 19, 2012.
On March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed this case with prejudice due to the plaintiffs not adequately alleging a material misrepresentation or omission. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for §§ 11 or 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act upon which relief can be granted. On the same day a judgment was entered by the clerk closing the case.
On April 17, 2013, the Court issued a notice that lead plaintiff appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the orders granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss entered in this action on March 22, 2012 and March 28, 2013.