Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/15/2017 (Other)

Filing Date: May 22, 2014

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint charges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements by misrepresenting and failing to disclose certain adverse facts, including that PowerSecure lacked the experience and internal controls necessary to expand its distributed generation business into larger contracts.

On May 7, 2014, PowerSecure reported its first quarter 2014 financial results, including an adjusted loss of ($0.17) per share compared to analysts’ earnings estimate of $0.02 per share. PowerSecure disclosed that it “mis-timed actions to shift resources to more profitable customers, as revenues from those new customers were not adequate to sustain our margins,” resulting in gross margins to decrease to 20.9% in the first quarter from 30.6% a year earlier. Thus, PowerSecure admitted contrary to representations as recently as March 10, 2014 that PowerSecure’s gross margins would remain “in the mid to upper 20%-range.”

On this news, PowerSecure shares declined $11.60 per share or 62%, to close at $7.00 per share on May 8, 2014.

On September 13, 2016, the Court issued an Order dismissing this case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: POWR
Company Market: New York SE
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: E.D. North Carolina
DOCKET #: 14-CV-00092
JUDGE: Hon. James C. Dever, III
DATE FILED: 05/22/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/10/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/07/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Rabon Law Firm, PLLC
    225 E. Worthington Avenue, Suite 100 , Rabon Law Firm, PLLC, NC 28203
    704.377.6680 704.377.6690 ·
  2. Wolf Popper, LLP
    845 Third Avenue, Wolf Popper, LLP, NY 10022-6689
    877.370.7703 212.486.2093 · IRRep@wolfpopper.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: E.D. North Carolina
DOCKET #: 14-CV-00092
JUDGE: Hon. James C. Dever, III
DATE FILED: 10/16/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/08/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/07/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brower Piven (New York)
    488 Madison Avenue. Eighth Floor, Brower Piven (New York), NY 10022
    212.501.9000 212.501.0300 · info@browerpiven.com
  2. Wilson & Ratledge, PLLC
    4600 Marriott Drive, Suite 400, Wilson & Ratledge, PLLC, NC 27612
    (919) 787-7711 (919) 787-7710 ·
No Document Title Filing Date