Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/24/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: April 03, 2019

According to the Complaint, Amyris purports to be an industrial biotechnology company that manufactures and
sells natural, sustainably-sourced products in health and wellness, clean beauty, and flavor and fragrance 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 lacked sufficient resources to accurately account for certain transactions; (2) that, as a result, there was a material weakness in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting; (3) that, as a result, the Company would be unable to timely file its annual report; and (4) 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 June 28, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Chemical Manufacturing
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AMRS
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 19-CV-01765
JUDGE: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
DATE FILED: 04/03/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/15/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/19/2019
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
  2. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available