On or around 06/03/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)
Filing Date: January 12, 2017
According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fenix had an inadequate inventory valuation methodology; (2) Fenix had an inadequate methodology to calculate goodwill impairment; (3) Fenix was engaging and/or had engaged in conduct that would result in an SEC investigation; and (4) as a result, Defendants’ statements about Fenix’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
On June 28, 2017, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint on August 28.
On November 1, 2017, this case was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, to be docketed under 17-CV-07896.
On January 2, 2018, the Issuer and Underwriter Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the amended Complaint. On June 26, the Court issued an Order granting the Underwriter Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. On July 13, the Court issued an Order denying the Issuer Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Fenix Parts, Inc.
Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Auto & Truck Parts
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: FENX
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.
First Identified Complaint
Amanda Beezley, et al. v. Fenix Parts, Inc., et al.