Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/30/2017 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: September 01, 2016

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 (DCS), Construction Services (CS), and Management Services (MS). The DCS segment provides planning, consulting, architectural and engineering design, program management, and construction management services for industrial, commercial, institutional, and government clients, such as transportation, facilities, environmental, and energy/power markets. The CS segment offers building construction and energy, as well as infrastructure and industrial construction services. The MS segment provides program and facilities management and maintenance, training, logistics, consulting, technical assistance, and systems integration and information technology services primarily for agencies of the U.S. government and other national governments.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational 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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ACM
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-06605
JUDGE: Hon. John A. Kronstadt
DATE FILED: 09/01/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/11/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/15/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-06605
JUDGE: Hon. John A. Kronstadt
DATE FILED: 03/06/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/07/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/15/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date