Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/22/2016 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: September 10, 2013

According to the law firm press release, it is alleged that Active Power issued materially false and misleading statements about its true business and operational condition. On April 30, 2013, Active Power announced that it had entered into a "[n]ew strategic distribution partnership agreement with Digital China Information Service Limited, the largest IT solutions provider in China." The Company represented that this relationship with Digital China would allow the Company to increase its revenues and profitability, adding that "[w]e have already engaged with Digital China on large data center projects for which we anticipate field product deployment later this year." On September 5, 2013, after close of trading, the Company retracted its guidance, citing disappointing results in China. The Company added that the poor results were attributable to the fact that "the company's previously announced agreement in China is with Qiyuan Network System Limited, which the company's management discovered is neither an affiliate nor a subsidiary of Digital China Information Service Company Limited." According to the Complaint, this adverse news caused the price of Active Power stock to fall, damaging investors.

An amended complaint was filed by the Plaintiffs on January 21, 2014. Defendants' motion to dismiss this complaint was denied by the Court on July 2, 2014.

On December 2, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. The Settlement was preliminarily approved on January 7, 2015. On May 15, 2015, the Court granted final approval of the Settlement and dismissed this case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Constr. & Agric. Machinery
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ACPW
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: W.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 13-CV-00797
JUDGE: Hon. Sam Sparks
DATE FILED: 09/10/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/30/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/05/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Payne Mitchell Law Group, LLP
    2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400, Payne Mitchell Law Group, LLP, TX 75219
    214-252-1888 214-252-1889 ·
  2. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016
    (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: W.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 13-CV-00797
JUDGE: Hon. Sam Sparks
DATE FILED: 01/21/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/19/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/05/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Payne Mitchell Law Group, LLP
    2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400, Payne Mitchell Law Group, LLP, TX 75219
    214-252-1888 214-252-1889 ·
  2. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016
    (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827 ·
No Document Title Filing Date