According to the law firm press release, Higher One provides technology-based refund disbursement, payment processing, and data analytics services to higher education institutions and students in the United States. Some of the services it offers include FDIC-insured online checking accounts to students, as well as faculty, staff, and alumni; a debit MasterCard ATM card; and OneAccount Premier and OneAccount Edge for primary account usage.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's marketing and disclosure practices were in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act; (ii) the Company's allegedly improper marketing and disclosure practices would subject Higher One to potential restitution demands and civil penalties; and (iii) the amounts of potential restitution demands and civil penalties could reach levels that would cause an event of default under the Company's Credit Facility.
On May 12, 2014, in a Form 10-Q filed with the SEC announcing its financial and operating results for the first quarter of 2014, the Company disclosed that it is facing penalties from the Federal Reserve over alleged violations tied to its marketing of a debit account for financial aid refunds. According to the filing, such penalties could trigger a default on the Company's Credit Facility.
On the news, Higher One shares fell $0.90, or over 14% on heavy trading volume, to close at $5.51 on May 13, 2014.
On December 17, 2014, the court appointed lead plaintiff and approved lead counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 21, 2015.
On September 13, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Lead Plaintiff filed an admended Complaint on December 1.
On September 25, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss.