Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 06/08/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 26, 2014

According to the law firm press release, Altair designs, manufactures and delivers energy storage systems for clean, efficient power and energy management.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, and internal controls over financial reporting. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing significant executive management and accounting level turnover in 2013 which led to a lack of segregation of duties throughout the Company and resulted in a lack of controls to perform a timely review of transactions at an appropriate level of precision; (2) the Company did not implement adequate procedures and controls over the 2013 year-end financial close and reporting process to ensure timely filings in compliance with its financial reporting requirements; (3) the Company did not implement adequate procedures and controls to appropriately evaluate routine and non-routine transactions, and as a result, did not detect the material misstatements that were identified by its auditor during its audit process; (4) the Company did not implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure accurate and timely communication with its subsidiaries in China; and as a result of the foregoing, (5) the Company did not implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure the completeness and accuracy of its consolidated financial statements and related subsequent events.

On September 4, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing that on August 28, 2014, Crowe Horwath LLP ("Crowe"), the independent registered public accounting firm of Altair, resigned as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm. According to the Form 8-K, Crowe's resignation letter to the Company's management and the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors advised the Company that it was resigning due to its inability to complete the audit of the Company's financial statements for the year ended 2013 in part due its inability to perform sufficient procedures to determine the completeness of reporting of subsequent events transactions that may have occurred in China. Moreover, Crowe indicated that it was resigning in part due to the Company's material weakness relative to implementing controls and procedures to ensure accurate and timely communications between the Company's subsidiaries in China and its U.S.-based accounting team.

On this news, NASDAQ halted Altair's shares during the trading day on September 4, 2014 at $4.30 per share. Shares of Altair resumed trading on September 24, 2014, and as a result of this news, immediately fell $3.35 per share, a drop of nearly 78% from the halted price of $4.30 on September 4, 2014, to close at $0.95 on September 24, 2014.

On February 15, 2015, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 21.

On November 30, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on January 22, 2016.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Electronic Instruments & Controls
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ALTI
Company Market: OTC-BB
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 14-CV-07828
JUDGE: Hon. Analisa Torres
DATE FILED: 09/26/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/15/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/04/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 14-CV-07828
JUDGE: Hon. Analisa Torres
DATE FILED: 07/21/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/15/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/25/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date