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 & Securities Information
Defendant: Amyris, Inc.
Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Chemical Manufacturing
Headquarters: United States
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.