Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/13/2017 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: November 12, 2014

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges that Albany Molecular issued materially false and misleading statements about its business and financial prospects. On August 5, 2014, Albany Molecular Research announced its second quarter 2014 results and increased its 2014 adjusted EPS guidance to $0.87 - $0.92 to reflect the addition of OsoBio and strengthening of its contract business. On November 5, 2014, the Company reported a loss of $8.6 million in its third quarter and lowered its 2014 adjusted EPS guidance to $0.67 and $0.73. The Company disclosed that a business interruption event at its OsoBio facility in late July, prior to its increased EPS estimates in August, contributed to a weak third quarter and the facility will not be back online until mid-November. On this news, shares of Albany Molecular Research fell sharply during intraday trading on November 5, 2014, damaging investors.

On January 26, 2015, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 31.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on February 9, 2017. The Settlement was preliminarily approved on June 26.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Healthcare
Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AMRI
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: E.D. New York
DOCKET #: 14-CV-06637
JUDGE: Hon. Frederic Block
DATE FILED: 11/12/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/05/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/05/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: E.D. New York
DOCKET #: 14-CV-06637
JUDGE: Hon. Frederic Block
DATE FILED: 03/31/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/05/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/05/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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