Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/30/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 31, 2019

According to the Complaint, Revolution Lighting purports to design and manufacture light-emitting diode (“LED”) lighting solutions for industrial, commercial, and government markets.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue for certain transactions; (2) that, as a result, the Company’s financial statements were misstated; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; (4) that, as a result, Company would be subject to regulatory scrutiny and incur substantial costs; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On July 29, 2019, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RVLT
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 19-CV-00980
JUDGE: Hon. J. Paul Oetken
DATE FILED: 01/31/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/14/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/14/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (New York)
  2. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available