Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/09/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 03, 2018

According to the law firm press release, Acuity is a provider of lighting and building management solutions for commercial, institutional, industrial, infrastructure, and residential applications.

The stockholder class action complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the defendants: (i) concealed known trends negatively impacting sales of the Company’s products; and (ii) overstated the Company’s ability to achieve profitable sales growth. As a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Acuity’s current and future business and financial prospects.

On April 30, 2018, the Court issued an Order transferring the case to the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On August 13, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. The consolidated cases shall be identified as "In re Acuity Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation." On October 5, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended Complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Electronic Instruments & Controls
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AYI
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: N.D. Georgia
DOCKET #: 18-CV-00012
JUDGE: Hon. Richard G. Andrews
DATE FILED: 01/03/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/29/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/03/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Rosenthal Monhait & Goddess,P.A
    919 Market Street, Suite 1401; Citizens Bank Center, Rosenthal Monhait & Goddess,P.A, DE 19801
    302.656.4433 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. Georgia
DOCKET #: 18-CV-02140
JUDGE: Hon. Richard G. Andrews
DATE FILED: 10/05/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/07/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/03/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Caplan Cobb LLP
    75 Fourteenth Street, NE Suite 2750 , Caplan Cobb LLP , GA 30309
    404-596-5610 404-596-5604 ·
  2. Gadow Tyler PLLC
    511 E. Pearl Street, Gadow Tyler PLLC, MS 39201
    (601) 355-0654 (601) 510-9667 ·
  3. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP (Pennsylvania)
    280 King of Prussia Road, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP (Pennsylvania), PA 19087
    610.667.7706 610.667.7706 · info@ktmc.com
  4. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available