Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/30/2016 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: February 27, 2015

According to the law firm press release, CTPartners provides retained executive search services. CTPartners facilitates the recruitment and hiring of “C-level” executives, other senior executives and board members.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants repeatedly highlighted the Company’s reputation within the industries in which it operated based on the “integrity” of its employees and on the strength and qualifications of its search consultants. Further, the Company represented that these consultants were promoted based on “objective” and “transparent” criteria related to their merits, and that this purported meritocracy had been and would be a key to the Company’s ongoing success. Defendants, however, failed to disclose that CTPartners allegedly operated as a “den of discrimination” that subjected employees to crude, improper and discriminatory practices, which threatened the Company’s ability to raise capital, retain employees or successfully execute its core business functions. As a result of defendants’ false statements, CTPartners common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $23.15 per share on November 12, 2014.

On December 8, 2014, an article in The New York Post reported that an “explosive” complaint had been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee by a former CTPartners employee, which reportedly detailed CTPartners as “a den of discrimination where women are stripped of profitable accounts, held to a higher standard than their male colleagues and subjected to lewd behavior.” That same day, CTPartners withdrew a stock offering that had been announced less than 24 hours earlier. As a result of this news, the price of CTPartners stock dropped $4.50 per share, a decline of 24% from the prior closing price.

On January 21, 2015, CTPartners announced disappointing preliminary fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2014 financial results, including earnings per share that came in well below the Company’s original guidance. CTPartners stated the miss was due to over $1.3 million in purportedly unanticipated expenses related to increased management, administrative and business development costs. On this news, the price of CTPartners stock dropped $3.63 per share, a one-day decline of more than 29%.

Then, on January 28, 2015, CTPartners withdrew its preliminary fourth quarter and year-end guidance provided only one week earlier and revised downward its earnings guidance for the first quarter and full fiscal year 2015. The Company stated that the downward revision was due to a $1.7 million increase in “compensation expense” for employee bonuses. In addition, CTPartners again withdrew a proposed stock offering, this one announced only two days prior. On this news, the price of CTPartners stock dropped $2.17 per share to close at $4.35 per share on January 29, 2015, a one-day decline of more than 33%.

On May 18, 2015, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 15.

On March 29, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. This case was closed.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CTP
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 15-CV-01476
JUDGE: Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer
DATE FILED: 02/27/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/26/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/28/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Johnson & Weaver LLP
    99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor, Johnson & Weaver LLP, NY 10016
    212.802.1486 212.602.1592 ·
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 15-CV-01476
JUDGE: Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer
DATE FILED: 06/15/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/26/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/28/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Office of Marc S. Henzel

    ·
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date