Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 08/15/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: June 24, 2015

According to the law firm press release, Solazyme is a bioproducts company that uses algae-based fermentation to produce renewable oils for a range of personal and industrial uses.

On March 25, 2014, Solazyme filed with the SEC a Registration Statement for the Offerings, which was amended the next day to register an additional $12.75 million in aggregate maximum principal amount of stock and notes. On March 27, 2014, Solazyme filed a Prospectus in connection with the offering of $149.5 million in convertible notes paying 5% interest and scheduled to mature in 2019 (the “Notes”). On the same day, Solazyme filed a Prospectus for the offering of 5.75 million shares of stock at $11 per share for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $63.25 million.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period and in the Registration Statements and Prospectuses for the Offerings, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information about Solazyme’s construction progress, development and production capacity at its renewable oils production facility located in Moema, Brazil (the “Moema Facility”). Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants' statements were false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the Moema Facility was experiencing construction delays due to insufficient access to electricity and steam utility services, and that these challenges would prohibit the Moema Facility from scaling its capacity production as projected. As a result of these false and misleading statements and/or omissions, Solazyme securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On May 5, 2014, Solazyme reported operational results for the first quarter of 2014. During the related conference call, Solazyme’s CEO stated that, rather than being “online” with “everything functioning as expected,” as defendants had previously claimed, the Moema Facility was instead “experiencing intermittent power and steam availability,” and consequently had failed to produce its first commercial product. Then, after the markets closed on November 5, 2014, Solazyme acknowledged significant and wide-ranging construction delays at the Moema Facility. On that day, the Company revealed for the first time that it would “narrow [its] production focus to smaller volumes of higher value products at . . . Moema” and would be “prioritizing cash management and product margin over a rapid capacity ramp.” On this news, the price of the Company’s stock declined $4.35 per share, or 58%, to close at $3.14 per share on November 6, 2014, and the market price of Solazyme’s Notes declined by $235.00 per Note, or 30%, to close at $540.00 per Note on November 7, 2014, the next session in which the Notes traded.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on December 15, 2015.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Chemical Manufacturing
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SZYM
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-02938
JUDGE: Hon. Haywood S Gilliam, Jr
DATE FILED: 06/24/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/27/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/05/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (New SF Office)
    One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (New SF Office), CA 94104
    (415) 288-4545 (415) 288-4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-02938
JUDGE: Hon. Haywood S Gilliam, Jr
DATE FILED: 12/15/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/27/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/05/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
  2. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
No Document Title Filing Date