Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 09/29/2016 (Other)

Filing Date: March 13, 2013

According to the law firm press release, the complaint charges Maxwell and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Maxwell develops, manufactures, and markets energy storage, power delivery and microelectronic products worldwide.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Maxwell’s financial performance and business prospects and overstated the Company’s reported revenue. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $21.20 per share on November 4, 2011.

On March 7, 2013, after the market closed, Maxwell issued a press release disclosing that the Company would be restating previously issued financial statements for 2011 and most of 2012 due to errors related to the timing of recognition of revenue from sales to certain distributors. The Company further disclosed that the financial statements should no longer be relied upon. On this news, the Company’s stock price dropped $1.01 per share on March 8, 2013 to close at $8.10 per share, a one-day decline of 11% on volume of 1.7 million shares, and a 62% decline from the stock’s Class Period high.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, included: (a) Maxwell had overstated its revenues and earnings in 2011 and 2012 in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (b) Maxwell had reported revenues prior to the time the sales price was fixed and/or collection was reasonably assured; and (c) Maxwell’s internal accounting controls were deficient and permitted the premature recognition of revenue, leading to materially misstated financial results.

On October 24, 2013, there was an Order Consolidating the cases and appointing Clearwater as lead plaintiff, and Saxena White P.A. to serve as Lead Counsel.

On January 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with Jury Demand Consolidation Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws against all defendants.

On January 17, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with Jury Demand Corrected Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws against all defendants.

On February 20, 2014, the defendants (Maxwell Technologies, Inc.) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Corrected Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws.

On May 5, 2014 the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants (Maxwell Technologies, Inc.) was GRANTED with leave to amend.

On June 4, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with Jury Demand Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws against the defendants (Maxwell Technologies, Inc.).

The parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement on October 16, 2014. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on November 3. The Settlement was granted final approval and this case was dismissed with prejudice on February 17, 2015.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Electronic Instruments & Controls
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: MXWL
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-00580
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
DATE FILED: 03/13/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/28/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/07/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
    3620 East Layton Ave., Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, WI 53110
    866-264-3995 414-482-8001 · inquiry@ademilaw.com
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-00580
JUDGE: Hon. Marilyn L. Huff
DATE FILED: 06/04/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/29/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/19/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego)
    12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San Diego), CA 92130
    858.793.0070 858.793.0323 · blbg@blbglaw.com
  2. Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson
    10059 Northwest 1st Court, Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson, FL 33324
    954.916.1202 954.916.1232 ·
  3. Saxena White PA (Boca Raton)
    2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257, Saxena White PA (Boca Raton), FL 33431
    561.394.3399 561.394.3399 ·
No Document Title Filing Date