According to the law firm press release, AECOM, together with its subsidiaries, engages in designing, building, financing, and operating infrastructure assets worldwide. The Company operates through three segments: Design and Consulting Services, Construction Services, and Management Services.

On October 17, 2014, AECOM announced that the Company had finalized its acquisition of URS Corp. (the “URS Acquisition”).

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AECOM engaged in fraudulent and deceptive business practices (ii) AECOM lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; (iii) AECOM overstated the benefits of the URS Acquisition; (iv) AECOM overstated the Company’s free cash flow per share; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, AECOM’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 16, 2016, Spruce Point Capital Management published a report on AECOM (the “Spruce Point Report”), stating that “after a careful forensic financial and accounting analysis of AECOM’s recent financial results and condition, we believe that AECOM’s stock is worth approximately 33% - 45% less than its current price." Among other issues, the Spruce Point Report cited AECOM management’s “misaligned incentive structure,” pursuant to which the Company’s “CEO’s $18 million compensation in 2015 [was] heavily tied to its aggressive interpretation of its Free Cash Flow per share,” and asserted that the Company had misrepresented the costs and benefits of the URS Acquisition.

On this news, AECOM stock fell $1.65, or 4.7%, to close at $33.44 on August 16, 2016, damaging investors.

On February 8, 2017, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint on March 6.

On June 19, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Rather than amend their Complaint, Lead Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case on June 30.