Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/17/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: August 16, 2016

According to the law firm press release, on August 9, 2016, SunPower issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2016 financial results. Therein, the Company disclosed the existence of several factors negatively impacting the Company’s performance, including “customers adopting a longer-term timeline for project completion,” “aggressive [Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”)] pricing by new market entrants,” and “continued market disruption in the YieldCo environment.” The Company also announced a manufacturing realignment which the Company stated would result in restructuring charges totaling $30-$45 million, a substantial portion of which would be incurred in the third quarter of 2016. Finally, the Company disclosed that, as a result of these “challenges,” it was substantially decreasing its fiscal year 2016 guidance—expecting a net loss of $175 million to $125 million, rather than the earlier-forecasted net income of $0 to $50 million.

On this news, SunPower’s stock price fell $4.47 per share, or 30%, to close at $10.31 per share on August 10, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint charges SunPower and certain of its officers with violations of the federal securities laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that a substantial number of the Company’s customers were adopting a longer-term timeline for project completion; (2) that the Company’s near-term economic returns were deteriorating due to aggressive PPA pricing by new market entrants; (3) that market disruption in the YieldCo environment was impacting the Company’s assumptions related to monetizing deferred profits; (4) that, as such, demand for the Company’s products was significantly declining; (5) that, in response, the Company would implement a manufacturing realignment that would result in significant restructuring charges; (6) that, as such, the Company’s fiscal year 2016 guidance was overstated; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about SunPower’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On December 9, 2016, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. This Lead Plaintiff and Counsel withdrew on May 15, 2017.

New Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel were appointed on August 21, 2017. An amended complaint was filed on October 17.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SPWR
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 #: 16-CV-04710
JUDGE: Hon. Richard Seeborg
DATE FILED: 08/16/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/17/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/09/2016
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. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-04710
JUDGE: Hon. Richard Seeborg
DATE FILED: 10/17/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/17/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/09/2016
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. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date