Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/12/2014 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: May 14, 2013

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Amyris’s priority was the commercialization and production of Biofene and its derivatives for sale in a range of specialty chemical applications. The complaint further alleges that defendants represented to investors that it had the ability to produce Biofene in commercially meaningful volumes, and that such representations were materially false and misleading because in fact Amyris could not produce Biofene in the amounts represented.

On November 1, 2011, Amyris disclosed that it would not be able to produce Biofene in the quantities previously represented but that it had identified and learned to address issues that would allow it to raise the volumes. In reaction to the news, Amyris’ share price fell over 20% from $19.36 per share to $15.47 per share. On February 9, 2012, Amyris executives reported a further slowdown in Biofene production and announced the need to raise funds. Amyris shares fell an additional 28%, from $9.73 per shares to $6.99 per share.

On July 29, 2013, the motion was granted appointing Lead Plaintiff for the Class and the law firms of Milberg LLP and Brodsky & Smith, LLC were approved and appointed as Lead Counsel for the proposed Class.

On October 25, 2013, a Consolidated Class Action Amended Complaint was filed by the Lead plaintiffs against the defendants.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector:
Industry:
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AMRS
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-02209
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 05/14/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/29/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/08/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg LLP (New York), NY 10119
    1.877.692.1965 · ContactUs@milberg.com
  2. Wohl & Fruchter LLP
    570 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor, Wohl & Fruchter LLP, NY 10022
    212.758.4000 212.758.4000 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-02209
JUDGE: Hon. Susan Illston
DATE FILED: 10/25/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/29/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/08/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC
    Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Brodsky & Smith, LLC, PA 19004
    610.667.6200 610.667.6200 ·
  2. Brodsky & Smith, LLC (California)
    9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900, Brodsky & Smith, LLC (California), CA 90212
    310.300.8425 310.300.8425 · clients@brodsky-smith.com
  3. Milberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900, Milberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90071
    213.617.1200 213.617.1200 · ContactUs@milberg.com
  4. Milberg LLP (New York)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, Milberg LLP (New York), NY 10119
    1.877.692.1965 · ContactUs@milberg.com
No Document Title Filing Date