Friday, January 22, 2016

Faruqi & Faruqi Investigation: Synutra International, Inc.


The Company’s stockholders will only receive $5.91 in cash for each share of Company common stock they own. However, this consideration is below at least one analyst price target of $6.74 per share as well as Synutra's 52-week high of $7.90 per share.
If you own common stock in Synutra and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please contact Faruqi & Faruqi's Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com or by telephone at (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330. 

Faruqi & Faruqi Investigation: Anadigics, Inc.


Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities firm headquartered in New York City, is investigating the Board of Directors of Anadigics, Inc. (“Anadigics” or the “Company”) (NasdaqCM:ANAD) for potential breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of the Company to II-VI Incorporated for approximately $61 million.
The Company’s stockholders will only receive $0.66 in cash for each share of Company common stock they own. However, the consideration is below at least one analyst price target of $1.25 per share.
If you own common stock in Anadigics and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please contact Faruqi & Faruqi's Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com or by telephone at (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330. 

Faruqi & Faruqi Investigation: Atmel Corporation


Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities firm headquartered in New York City, is investigating the Board of Directors of Atmel Corporation (“Atmel” or the “Company”) (NasdaqGS:ATML) for potential breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of the Company to Microchip Technology Incorporated for approximately $3.56 billion in a cash and stock transaction. 
The Company’s stockholders will only receive $7 per share in cash and $1.15 per share of Microchip stock for each Company stock they own. However, the offer is lower than the previous Dialog Semiconductor agreement announced in September as well as it is below at least one analyst’s estimated value of $10.50 per share
The investigation focuses on whether Atmel’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s stockholders by failing to conduct a fair sales process and whether and by how much this proposed transaction undervalues the Company to the detriment of Atmel’s shareholders.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a national law firm which represents investors and individuals in class action litigation.  The firm is focused on providing exemplary legal services in complex litigation in the areas of securities, shareholder, antitrust and consumer litigation, throughout all phases of litigation.  The firm has an experienced trial team which has achieved significant victories on behalf of the firm’s clients. Follow us on Twitter or on Facebook.
If you own common stock in Atmel and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com or by telephone at (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330. 

Faruqi & Faruqi Investigation: GNC Holdings, Inc.


The investigation focuses on whether the Company’s Board of Directors and its officers committed mismanagement and breached their fiduciary duties.  On October 22, 2015, the Attorney General of Oregon (the “OAG”) filed a lawsuit against General Nutrition Corporation (“GNC”) alleging that GNC “repeatedly violated Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”) by misrepresenting that various products that GNC sold in Oregon were lawful dietary supplements when in fact, the products were adulterated and unlawful because they contained either picamilon or BMPEA, two potentially dangerous ingredients that do not meet the legal definition of a dietary ingredient and may not be lawfully used in dietary supplements.”  
Moreover, the OAG complaint alleges that on June 16, 2015, the OAG issued an Investigative Demand to GNC Holdings (GNC’s parent company) which demanded production of documents and information relating to GNC’s sale of picamilon.  The Investigative Demand clearly discussed the likelihood that picamilon was not a lawful dietary ingredient.  GNC was aware that GNC Holdings received the demand, and GNC produced documents and information in response to the demand.  Despite the foregoing, GNC continued to sell products that contain picamilon and did not cease selling such products until after the OAG issued a Notice of Unlawful Trade Practices and Proposed Resolution on September 21, 2015.
Take Action
If you currently own GNC stock and would like to discuss your legal rights, please contact us by calling Stuart Guber toll free at (215) 277-5770 or by sending an e-mail to sguber@faruqilaw.com. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding GNC’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Faruqi & Faruqi Alert: Ooma, Inc.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in Ooma, Inc. (“Ooma” or the “Company”) (NYSE:OOMA) of federal securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company, certain officers, shareholders controlling over 56% of the Company’s shares and the Underwriters of the Company’s initial public offering (the “IPO”).
The lawsuit has been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo on behalf of all those who purchased Ooma common stock in or traceable to the Company’s July 17, 2015 IPO (the “Class Period”).  The case, Barnett v. Ooma, Inc., No. CIV536959 was filed on January 14, 2016.
The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus (the “Offering Documents”) filed in connection with the IPO.  Specifically, it is alleged that Ooma’s Registration Statement concealed: (i) that certain exceptionally large prior fiscal year sales to its largest outside reseller, emphasized in the Offering Documents to be a very significant Ooma partner, were not recurring or being replaced in the fiscal year leading into the IPO; (ii) Ooma’s customer churn rate, emphasized repeatedly throughout the Offering Documents as being at an industry low rate of 0.55%, had increased significantly as of the IPO as a result of customers having endured eight-hour service outages in April and May 2015; (iii) technological difficulties in the Company’s lead generation business were causing leads to get lost in the internet before reaching their intended targets, negatively impacting sales of that service and Ooma’s business; (iv) Ooma’s subscription revenue growth and operating and pretax profit margins were both decreasing; and (v) Ooma’s subscription retention rate was dropping and net losses were doubling on a year-over-year basis, as of the IPO.
As of the time of the filing of the complaint, the share price fell $6.44 per share from the $13 IPO to close at $6.56 per share, a 49.5% drop, on January 14, 2016.
Take Action
If you invested in in or traceable to the Company’s July 17, 2015 IPO and would like to discuss your legal rights, you can contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.comFaruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Ooma’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Faruqi & Faruqi Alert: Fitbit, Inc.


Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in Fitbit, Inc. (“Fitbit” or the “Company”) (NYSE:FIT) of the March 11, 2016 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company and certain officers.
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all those who purchased Fitbit securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with Fitbit’s initial public offering (the “IPO”) on or about June 18, 2015, and/or between June 18, 2015 and January 6, 2016 (the “Class Period”).  The case, Robb v. Fitbit Inc., No. 16-cv-151 was filed on January 11, 2016, and has been assigned to Judge Susan Illston.
The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that Fitbit’s heart rate monitoring technology was inaccurate and failed to consistently provide accurate heart rate readings during exercises, posing serious health risks to its customers.
Specifically, on January 6, 2016, news was reported of a class action lawsuit filed against Fitbit alleging that inaccurate heart rate monitoring systems in Fitbit’s Charge HR and Surge devices created a risk of life-threatening overexertion.
After news that the complaint was filed, the share price fell $1.40 per share that day to close at $22.90 per share, a 5.7% drop, on January 6, 2016.
Take Action
If you invested in Fitbit stock or options between June 18, 2015 and January 6, 2016 and would like to discuss your legal rights, you can contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.comFaruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Fitbit’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Faruqi & Faruqi Alert: Fifth Street Asset Management Inc.


Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. (“FSAM” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:FSAM) of the March 7, 2016 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company and certain officers.
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all those who purchased FSAM securities on or around October 30, 2014 initial public offering (the “IPO”).  The case, Linde et al v. Fifth Street Asset Management, Inc. et al, No. 3:16-cv-00025 was filed on January 7, 2016, and has been assigned to Judge Robert N. Chatigny.
The lawsuit claims that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements and filing documents omitting information in connection with the Company’s IPO.
Specifically, since the IPO was completed, Fifth Street Finance Corp. (“FSC”), a publicly traded asset portfolio company under FSAM, announced that a substantial portion of its debt portfolio had entered non-accrual, including $4.2 billion it manages for FSAM. This led to FSC being downgraded by Fitch Ratings Inc. from BB+ from BBB- on a negative outlook due largely to FSAM’s poor management of FSC and its credibility problems with investors. Since the announcement, FSC has had to reissue financials for three consecutive quarters.
The share price has fallen from its $17.00 per share IPO price to a $4.03 per share closing price on December 9—a 76% drop.
Take Action
If you invested in FSAM stock pursuant to and/or traceable to the IPO and would like to discuss your legal rights, please contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.comFaruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding FSAM’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Faruqi & Faruqi Alert: Cnova N.V.


Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in Cnova N.V. (“Cnova” or the “Company”) (NasdaqGS:CNV) of the March 21, 2016 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company and certain officers.
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased Cnova securities between the initial public offering on or about November 19, 2014 (the “IPO”) and December 18, 2015 (the “Class Period”). The case, UMON v. Cnova N.V. et al, No. 1:16-cv-00498 was filed on January 22, 2016.
The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose the material discrepancy in accounts receivable related to the damaged/returned items which in turn overstated net sales, did not properly discounted the write-off value of returned items and inflated EBIT in the Company’s financial statements.
When this information was released to the public after markets closed via a Company press release on December 18, 2015, share price fell $0.53, or nearly 18%, to close at $2.42 on December 21, 2015.
Take Action
If you invested in Cnova stock between November 19, 2014, and December 18, 2015, and would like to discuss your legal rights, fill out the form below. You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.comFaruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Cnova’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Faruqi & Faruqi Alert: Esperion Therapeutics, Inc.


Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. (“Esperion” or the “Company”) (NasdaqGM:ESPR) of the March 14, 2016 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company and certain officers.
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of all those who purchased Esperion common stock between August 18, 2015 and September 28, 2015 (the “Class Period”). The case, Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. et al, No. 2:16-cv-10089 was filed on January 12, 2016, and has been assigned to Judge Arthur J. Tarnow.
The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements in connection with the Company’s future prospects for their lead drug candidate ETC-1002, a drug designed to lower LDL-cholesterol levels. The FDA had encouraged Esperion to initiate a cardiovascular outcomes trial (“CVOT”) and that completion of a CVOT could be necessary prior to approval of ETC-1002.
On August 17, 2015, Esperion stated that the FDA had informed it that the Company did not have to complete a CVOT to gain approval of ETC-1002. However, in an Esperion news release that was released after market close on September 28, 2015, it was revealed that the FDA had encouraged the Company to initiate a CVOT to obtain approval.
On September 28, 2015, Esperion’s stock closed at $35.09 per share. As a result of the news release, the Company’s share price fell $16.76 per share the next day to close at $18.33 per share, a 47.7% decrease in share price.
Take Action
If you invested in Esperion common stock between August 18, 2015 and September 28, 2015 and would like to discuss your legal rights, please contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Esperion’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class that is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. 

Faruqi & Faruqi Alert: GoPro, Inc.


Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in GoPro, Inc. (“GoPro” or the “Company”) (NasdaqGS:GPRO) of the March 14, 2016 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company and certain officers.
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all those who purchased GoPro securities between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 (the “Class Period”).  The case, Bodri v. GoPro, Inc. et al, No. 3:16-cv-00232 was filed on January 13, 2016, and has been assigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar.
The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose the weak sales of its HERO line of cameras as well as providing misleading and inflated financial expectations for the company's third and fourth quarter 2015.
Specifically, on July 21, 2015, the company announced its guidance for the third quarter 2015, anticipating revenue between $430 million and $435 million. However, on October 28, 2015, the company issued a press release announcing poor third quarter 2015 results, reporting revenue of only $400 million, far below the company's guidance.
Then, after market close on January 13, 2016, GoPro issued a press release, stating that its fourth quarter 2015 revenue of $435 million fell below the company's guidance of $500 million to $550 million. Furthermore, the Company announced a reduction of its workforce by approximately 7%, and that it was incurring approximately $5 million to $10 million in restructuring costs.

After the announcement, Company share price fell $4.08 per share, a 27.9% drop, to $10.52 per share during after-hours trading on January 13, 2016.
Take Action
If you invested in GoPro securities between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 and would like to discuss your legal rights, please contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.comFaruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding GoPro’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Faruqi & Faruqi Alert: Anavex Life Sciences Corp.


Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in Anavex Life Sciences Corp. (“Anavex” or the “Company”) (NasdaqCM:AVXL) of the February 29, 2016 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company and certain officers.
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased Anavex securities between May 17, 2013 and December 28, 2015 (the “Class Period”).  The case, Cortina v. Anavex Life Sciences Corp et al, No. 1:15-cv-10162 was filed on December 30, 2015, and has been assigned to Judge Jesse Matthew Furman.
The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making misleading statements and failing to disclose that Anavex paid a stock promoter to artificially inflate the share price of the Company.
During premarket on December 29, 2015, Anavex disclosed that the Company received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on December 22, 2015. The Company stated that they believed the subpoena and investigation was in connection with unusual activity in the market for the Company’s shares. As a result of this news, on December 29, 2015, Anavex’s stock fell $0.75 per share to close at $6.28 per share, a 10.6686% drop.
During premarket on December 30, 2015, Seeking Alpha published a report entitled, "Anavex: A Regulatory Target Damaged By Incriminating Evidence." On this news, Anavex stock fell $0.78 to close at $5.50 per share, a 12.4204% drop.
Take Action
If you invested in Anavex securities between May 17, 2013 and December 28, 2015 and would like to discuss your legal rights, please contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.comFaruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Anavex’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class that is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. 

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Supreme Court Holds Unaccepted Rule 68 Offer Does Not Moot Class Action

Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, No. 14-857, resolved a Circuit split and concerned a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case where the defendant attempted to moot the claims of a plaintiff seeking to represent a class of individuals who had received text messages in violation of the TCPA.  The defendant, Cambell-Ewald Company, made a Rule 68 offer to the plaintiff in an amount greater than the plaintiff's potential statutory damages.  After the plaintiff allowed the offer to lapse, Campbell moved to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The District Court denied the motion, and the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision.

Justice Ginsberg, echoing Justice Kagan's 2013 dissent in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk  (where Faruqi & Faruqi represented the plaintiff), hewed to traditional contract principles and wrote that "Like other unaccepted contract offers [Campbell's Rule 68 offer] creates no lasting right or obligation.  With the offer off the table, and the defendant's continuing denial of liability, adversity between the parties persists."  Justice Ginsberg quoted the Genesis dissent, "An unaccepted settlement offer-like any unaccepted contract offer-is a legal nullity, with no operative effect.  As every first-year law student learns, the recipient's rejection of an offer leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made." 

Chief Justice Roberts' dissent, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito, focused on Article III issues, not contract doctrines.  "The problem for Gomez is that the federal courts exist to resolve real disputes, not to rule on a plaintiff's entitlement to relief already there for the taking" and noted the Court's centuries-old prohibition from issuing advisory opinions.   In Justice Roberts' view the Campbell decision takes control out of the hands of the federal courts to decide whether a case or controversy exists and hands it to the plaintiff.  Justice Ginsberg expressly disagreed, and noted that the Chief Justice's view would, in fact, have handed control to the defendant.  

Indeed, had the dissent's view prevailed, a Rule 68 offer to an individual could moot a class action before it even began.

Since its founding in 1995, Faruqi & Faruqi has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous high-profile cases which ultimately provided significant recoveries to investors, consumers and employees.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Faruqi & Faruqi Case: First Niagara Financial Group, Inc.


Notice is hereby given that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case no. 1:15-cv-01226, on behalf of unitholders of First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. (“First Niagara” or the “Company”) (NasdaqGS:FNFG) who held (and continue to hold) First Niagara securities acquired on or before October 30, 2015.
On October 30, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive merger agreement (“Merger Agreement”) under which KeyCorp. will acquire all of the outstanding units of First Niagara. The unit-for-unit transaction is valued at approximately $4.1 billion. The transaction and vote are expected to occur in the third quarter of 2016.
The complaint charges First Niagara, its Board of Directors, and affiliated corporate entities and individuals with violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was unanimously approved by the Company’s Board of Directors, First Niagara unitholders will receive $2.30 in cash and 0.68 shares of KeyCorp common stock for each unit of First Niagara they own. On October 29, 2015, this per share consideration was valued at $11.40 per share. The complaint alleges that the merger consideration fails to adequately value the Company's recent financial performance, is well below analyst estimates, and fails to adequately compensate shareholders for the synergies that KeyCorp. will enjoy from the transaction.
Furthermore, according to the complaint, the Merger Agreement includes a non-solicitation provision, an information rights provision, and a $137.5 million termination fee which essentially ensure that a superior bidder will not emerge, as any potential suitor will undoubtedly be deterred from expending the time, cost, and effort of making a superior proposal.
The complaint also alleges that the preliminary proxy statement (the “Proxy”), filed as part of its Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on November 30, 2015, provided materially incomplete and misleading disclosures, thereby violating Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Proxy denies First Niagara’s unitholders material information concerning the financial and procedural fairness of the Merger.
Take Action
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 19, 2016. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com or by telephone at (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330..

Monday, January 18, 2016

Faruqi & Faruqi Investigation: 6D Global Technologies, Inc.


The investigation focuses on whether the Company’s Board of Directors and its officers committed mismanagement and breached their fiduciary duties. On September 8, 2015, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") indicted Benjamin Wei, the founder and principle of New York Global Group (“NYGG”), for securities fraud. On September 10, 2015, the DOJ arrested Wei and the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action against Wei and NYGG for their part in the fraudulent scheme to obtain and profit from undisclosed, controlling ownership interests in several U.S. companies created through "reverse Chinese mergers," including 6D Global, that were secretly controlled by Wei and NYGG.
As a result, on September 10, 2015, Nasdaq halted trading in the Company’s stock and on November 25, 2015, the Company filed a current report on Form 8-K announcing that on November 20, 2015, the Company received a letter from The Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Staff stating that Nasdaq has determined that the Company’s common stock would be subject to suspension and then delisting from Nasdaq. Additionally as a result of the foregoing, a securities fraud action and a private action brought by a 6D Global institutional investor have been filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.
Take Action
If you currently own 6D Global stock and would like to discuss your legal rights, please contact us by calling Stuart Guber toll free at (215) 277-5770 or by sending an e-mail to sguber@faruqilaw.com. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding 6D Global’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Thursday, January 14, 2016

Faruqi & Faruqi Investigation: Affymetrix Inc.


Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities firm headquartered in New York City, is investigating the Board of Directors of Affymetrix Inc. (“Affymetrix” or the “Company”) (NasdaqGS:AFFX) for potential breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of the Company to Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. for approximately $1.3 billion. 
The Company’s stockholders will only receive $14.00 in cash for each share of Company common stock they own.
If you own common stock in Affymetrix and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com or by telephone at (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330. 

Faruqi & Faruqi Investigation: Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc.


Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities firm headquartered in New York City, is investigating the Board of Directors of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. (“Anchor BanCorp” or the “Company”) (NasdaqGS:ABCW) for potential breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of the Company to Old National Bancorp. for approximately $461 million. 
The Company’s stockholders may elect to receive either $48.50 in cash or 3.5505 shares of Old National common stock for each share of Company common stock they own, or approximately $42.54 per share.
If you own common stock in Anchor BanCorp and wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com or by telephone at (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Faruqi & Faruqi Investigation: Endurance International Group Holdings Inc.


The investigation focuses on whether the Company’s Board of Directors and its officers committed mismanagement and breached their fiduciary duties.  On April 28, 2015, research firm Gotham City Research LLC (“Gotham”) published a report entitled “Endurance International Group: A Web of Deceit.”  The report alleges, among other things, that over 40% of the Company’s reported profits are suspect, the Company engaged in related party transactions for the purpose of overstating earnings, organic growth is overstated, the Company hosts terrorist-related websites and a high percentage of malware/spam-related accounts, and the Company’s churn rate is high as a result of service outages, poor customer support and slow loading speeds. 
As a result, on December 17, 2015, the Company announced that it had received a subpoena dated December 10, 2015 from the Boston Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) requiring the production of certain documents, including, among other things, documents related to Endurance’s financial reporting, including operating and non-GAAP metrics, refund, sales and marketing practices and transactions with related parties. The Company further stated that it can make no assurance as to the time or resources that will need to be devoted to this investigation or its final outcome, or the impact, if any, of this investigation or any proceedings on Endurance’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Take Action
If you currently own Endurance stock and would like to discuss your legal rights, please contact us by calling Stuart Guber toll free at (215) 277-5770 or by sending an e-mail to sguber@faruqilaw.comFaruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Endurance’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Faruqi & Faruqi Case: Airgas, Inc.


Notice is hereby given that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, case no. 2:15-cv-06787, on behalf of unitholders of Airgas, Inc. (“Airgas” or the “Company”) (NYSE:ARG) who held (and continue to hold) Airgas securities acquired on or before November 17, 2015.
On November 17, 2015, the Company entered into a Purchase Agreement and Plan of Merger (“Merger Agreement”) under which L’Air Liquide, S.A. (“Air Liquid”) will acquire all of the outstanding units of Airgas through the newly formed subsidiary AL Acquisition Corporation. The unit-for-unit transaction is valued at approximately $13.4 billion.
The complaint charges Airgas, its Board of Directors, and affiliated corporate entities and individuals with violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was unanimously approved by the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board” or “Individual Defendants”), Airgas unitholders will receive $143.00 in cash per share for each unit of Airgas they own. However, the complaint alleges that the offer does not reflect the Company’s inherent and long-term value based on recent financial reports.
Furthermore, according to the complaint, the Merger Agreement includes a non-solicitation provision, a matching rights provision, and a $400 million termination fee which essentially ensure that a superior bidder will not emerge, as any potential suitor will undoubtedly be deterred from expending the time, cost, and effort of making a superior proposal.
The complaint also alleges that the preliminary proxy statement (the “Proxy”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on December 8, 2015 provided materially incomplete and misleading disclosures, thereby violating Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Proxy denies Airgas unitholders material information concerning the financial and procedural fairness of the Merger.
Take Action
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 12, 2016.  Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact us at www.faruqilaw.com

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Faruqi & Faruqi Investigation: Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.


The investigation focuses on whether Chipotle officers and directors engaged in potential misconduct in connection with multiple outbreaks of foodborne illnesses across several U.S. states. In August 2015, 64 customers in Minnesota were infected with Salmonella and more than 200 people were infected with norovirus in southern California. Following these incidents, an E. Coli outbreak sickened more than 50 people in nine states in October and November 2015, resulting in Chipotle closing 43 restaurants in Washington state and Oregon. In December 2015, Chipotle suffered from two more outbreaks of foodborne illnesses. Approximately 140 students at Boston College were infected with norovirus and a second E. Coli outbreak sickened approximately five people in three states.   
As a result of these incidents, on January 6, 2016, Chipotle announced that it was served with a Federal Grand Jury Subpoena in December 2015 in connection with the norovirus outbreak in August 2015 at its restaurant in Simi Valley, California. The subpoena is connected to a criminal investigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations.  As a result, the Company stated that it is not possible at this time to determine whether it will incur, or to reasonably estimate the amount of, any fines, penalties or further liabilities in connection with the investigation pursuant to which the subpoena was issued.
Take Action
If you currently own CMG stock and would like to discuss your legal rights, please contact us by calling Faruqi & Faruqi's Stuart Guber toll free at (215) 277-5770 or by sending an e-mail to sguber@faruqilaw.com. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding CMG’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Faruqi & Faruqi Investigation: Hilton Worldwide Holdings


The investigation focuses whether the Company’s officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by failing to take adequate steps to prevent and/or detect two separate security breaches related to customer credit and debit card payments at its hotels. A press release issued by the Company on November 25, 2015 stated that the breaches occurred over a seventeen-week period, from November 18-December 5, 2014 to April 21-July 27, 2015. 
Hilton stated that malicious software, known as malware, infiltrated payment systems at hotel restaurants, gift shops and other hotel locations with registers. The Company further stated that it has determined that the malware may have collected customer names, credit card numbers, security codes and expiration dates. 
Take Action
If you currently own Hilton stock and would like to discuss your legal rights, please fill out the form below. You can also contact us by calling Faruqi & Faruqi's Stuart Guber toll free at (215) 277-5770 or by sending an e-mail to sguber@faruqilaw.comFaruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Hilton’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.