According to the law firm press release, Western Union, headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, is a provider of money movement and payment services worldwide.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial performance and future prospects, including failing to disclose that Western Union: (a) was experiencing difficulties complying with its increased compliance duties required by its Southwest Border Agreement with the state of Arizona, which was to crack down on illegal money laundering practices between the states along the U.S. and Mexican border; (b) was spending significantly more than forecast on its efforts to satisfy the Southwest Border Agreement compliance and monitoring program; (c) had downplayed the impact that changes in its compliance and regulatory environment were having on the Company’s operations during the Class Period, including its operations in Mexico and Latin America; and (d) was under competitive pricing pressure to charge a premium for its core money transfer product.
The complaint further alleges that on October 30, 2012, the Company disclosed disappointing third quarter 2012 financial results and reduced its 2012 revenue, operating margin and earnings per share outlook, blaming the Company’s disastrous results and outlook in large part on the implementation of new system requirements in its Mexican operations required to comply with the Southwest Border Agreement. As a result of the new requirements, the complaint alleges that the Company was forced to terminate its relationship with 40% of its Mexican locations, as many of its agents were unable to meet the new heightened standards, and that the disruption in the Company’s Mexican locations further caused a disruption in Western Union’s Latin American operations. In addition, the Company disclosed that it was subject to intense competition in certain of its key corridors. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Western Union stock plummeted $5.20 per share on October 31, 2012, a decline of 29%.
On September 26, 2014, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff.
This case was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on February 5, 2016.