Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/20/2017 (Other)

Filing Date: April 25, 2016

According to the law firm press release, La Quinta describes itself as a leading owner, operator and franchisor of select-service hotels serving primarily the midscale and upper-midscale markets.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the SPO failed to disclose the following material trends, events and/or uncertainties: (i) the Company was experiencing declining customer demand in La Quinta’s key Texas market; (ii) there were on-going disruptions caused by the transitioning of the Company’s call center operations; and (iii) the Company was experiencing declining customer demand and market share losses due, in part, to certain of La Quinta’s facilities being outdated and in need of major renovation, thereby necessitating that the Company make significant capital expenditures and undergo operational disruptions.

Moreover, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose, among other things, the following adverse facts: (a) that there was a material slowdown in demand for its hotel rooms in its key Texas market during the Class Period; (b) that La Quinta was experiencing disruptions associated with a “transition” of the Company’s reservation call center, which was having a material adverse effect on the Company’s operations; (c) that La Quinta was facing market share losses and declining customer demand due, in part, to its outdated facilities; (d) that a significant number of La Quinta’s hotels were in need of major renovation, which would require significant capital expenditures and result in operational disruptions; (e) that La Quinta had overstated the amounts buyers were willing to pay for certain of its properties; (f) that (a)-(e) above were reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on La Quinta’s future operating results; and (g) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for the Company’s 2015 guidance and their positive statements about La Quinta’s then-current business and future financial prospects.

On July 29, 2015, the Company announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2015, ended June 30, 2015. Among other things, La Quinta reported that the Company’s earnings had been adversely affected by a $4 million loss on the sale of a property and an approximate $42 million impairment charge associated with the potential sale of 24 Company-owned hotels. In response to these revelations, the price of La Quinta common stock declined approximately 3.5% on July 30, 2015.

On September 17, 2015, La Quinta announced that it had further reduced its 2015 financial guidance and that its President and Chief Executive Officer had stepped down from his leadership positions in the Company by mutual agreement with the Company’s Board of Directors. In response to these revelations, the price of La Quinta common stock declined more than 15% on September 18, 2015.

On July 21, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 30. A second amended complaint was filed on December 30.

On August 24, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motions to dismiss with prejudice, and closing this case.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Hotels & Motels
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LQ
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 #: 16-CV-03068
JUDGE: Hon. Alison J. Nathan
DATE FILED: 04/25/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/25/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/17/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Holzer & Holzer, LLC
    1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107, Holzer & Holzer, LLC, GA 30338
    770.392.0090 770.392-0029 · mfistel@holzerlaw.com
  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 #: 16-CV-03068
JUDGE: Hon. Alison J. Nathan
DATE FILED: 09/30/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/19/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/29/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Allen Brothers, P.L.L.C.
    400 Monroe, Suite 220, Allen Brothers, P.L.L.C., MI 48226
    313.962.7777 313.962.7777 ·
  2. Kirby McInerney LLP (New York)
    825 Third Avenue, Kirby McInerney LLP (New York), NY 10022
    212.371.6600 212.371.6600 ·
No Document Title Filing Date