On or around 09/12/2018 (Other)
Filing Date: November 13, 2015
According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the following: (1) the Company enriched its controlling family at the expense of shareholders through a series of related-party transactions; (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; (3) Eros overstated the number of movies it has distributed during fiscal years 2014 and 2015; (4) Eros overstated its theatrical revenue during fiscal years 2014 and 2015; (5) the Company’s financial results and operating metrics were overstated as a result; (6) the Company’s financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); and (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial statements and Defendants’ statements about Eros’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on July 15, 2016. This was followed by the filing of an amended complaint on October 10. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action on November 11.
The Court granted the Motion to Dismiss on September 22, 2017 and dismissed the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint with prejudice. A Notice of Appeal of this decision was filed on October 23. On September 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals issued an Order affirming the decision of the District Court.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Eros International PLC
Industry: Motion Pictures
Headquarters: United Kingdom
Ticker Symbol: EROS
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.
First Identified Complaint
Vladimir Maliarov, et al. v. Eros International PLC, et al.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 15-CV-08956
JUDGE: Hon. Alison J. Nathan
DATE FILED: 11/13/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/12/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/12/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067 (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
First Identified Complaint (FIC) Filings:
Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws