Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 08/17/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: May 25, 2016

According to the law firm press release, Ability provides tactical communications intelligence solutions for government agencies, military forces, and law enforcement and homeland security agencies worldwide.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants materially misstated the Company’s business metrics and financial prospects, including, but not limited to, failing to disclose that: (a) the Company had materially overstated its income by failing to account for commissions; (b) the Company had materially overstated its operating results by improperly recognizing revenue on multiple element sales transactions; (c) the Company had a material weakness in its internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure controls and that such controls were ineffective; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial statements for the years ending December 31, 2013 and 2014 were materially false and misleading and not prepared in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

On August 12, 2016, the Court appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel.

A consolidated complaint was filed on June 15, 2017.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: Israel

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ABIL
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 16-CV-03893
JUDGE: Hon. Victor Marrero
DATE FILED: 05/25/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/08/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/29/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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-03893
JUDGE: Hon. Victor Marrero
DATE FILED: 06/15/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/08/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/02/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (New York)
    88 Pine Street, 14th Floor, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (New York), NY 10022
    212.838.7797 212.838.7797 ·
  2. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (New York)
    122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (New York), NY 10168
    (212) 682-5340 (212) 884-0988 ·
  3. Law Office of Jacob Sabo
    The Tower No. 3 Daniel Frisch Street, Law Office of Jacob Sabo 64731
    01197236078888 011 972 3 607 88 89 · sabolaw@inter.net.il
No Document Title Filing Date