According to the law firm press release, EZCORP delivers cash solutions to customers across channels, products, services and markets. With approximately 1,400 locations and branches, the Company offers customers multiple ways to access instant cash, including pawn loans and consumer loans in the United States, Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Company offers these products through four primary channels: in-store, online, at the worksite, and through a mobile platform.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among others: (1) that the Company improperly recognized particular structured assets sales; (2) that the Company improperly classified certain loans; (3) that, as a result, the Company overstated its gains on assets sales and accrued interest revenue; (4) that, as such, the Company’s financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Over the course of several disclosures, the Company revealed its alleged accounting and securities fraud, causing the Company’s share price to decline thereby harming investors.
On November 3, 2015, the Court issued an Order appointing Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel and consolidating cases. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 11, 2016.
On October 18, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given twenty days to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 4.
On May 8, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On December 21, the Court issued an Order granting Lead Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw one of the Co-Lead Plaintiffs. The other Co-Lead Plaintiff continues to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the case.