TrueCar Targeted in Derivative Suit Over Allegedly Inflated Stock Price
According to the complaint, Santa Monica, California-based TrueCar, which operates an internet-based platform for car pricing, disclosed the possibility of changes as merely a risk to its bottom line for nearly a year, when in fact it knew that they were already underway.
April 02, 2019 at 03:19 PM
4 minute read
A derivative lawsuit filed in Delaware federal court Monday accused TrueCar Inc. of failing to warn investors about changes to its co-branded car-selling website with USAA, which allegedly caused the company to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in market capitalization last year.
According to the complaint, Santa Monica, California-based TrueCar, which operates an internet-based platform for car pricing, disclosed the possibility of changes as merely a risk to its bottom line for nearly a year, when in fact it knew that they were already underway.
The supposedly misleading statements, the filing said, caused TrueCar's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices, before the company was “hammered by massive sales” that erased gains that it had made in the market.
“The individual defendants misleadingly assured investors that USAA's ability to change the co-branding car buying website it shared with TrueCar was merely a 'risk,' when, in fact, USAA had already decided to implement such changes by early 2017,” attorneys for plaintiff Ara Afarian wrote in the 88-page complaint.
“Due to the close and intertwined nature of the partnership between TrueCar and USAA, the individual defendants were well aware of USAA's decision to implement significant website changes in early 2017 and that it would do so by June 2017, and that such changes would cause the Company's website traffic, sales, and revenues to materially decline.”
San Antonio, Texas-based USAA has historically operated as TrueCar's largest partner for directing customers to the TrueCar website in exchange for marketing fees. The partnership, Afarian said, has generated nearly one-third of TrueCar's annual unit sales, but also gives USAA ”broad discretion” to make adjustments to how the firms' co-branded selling site was operated, marketed and promoted.
According to the complaint, USAA decided in January 2017 to implement changes to the site, which included questions requiring USAA members to detail their personal finances and monthly budgets. However, the redesign, which formally launched that June, was not disclosed to investors until November, when TrueCar issues a “dismal earnings report and announced that it had failed to meet its third-quarter guidance,” Afarian said.
The complaint also lays out allegations of insider trading against TrueCar's directors and officers, who sold their personal stock holding for “tens of millions of dollars” in ill-gotten profits.
A large portion of the sales, Afarian alleged, coincided with TrueCar's secondary offering in April 2017, which raised about $19 million for the company. According to the complaint, USAA and several entities affiliated with the TrueCar board reaped 90 percent of the proceeds from the offering to the tune of $151.8 million.
Meanwhile, TrueCar's chief financial officer and chief accounting officer were among a group of “company insiders” who offloaded 1.2 million shares for a total of $22 million when TrueCar was trading above its actual value, the filing said.
Last March, a federal judge in California last March greenlighted a securities class action over the same alleged misconduct, finding that plaintiffs in that case had satisfied heightened pleading standards under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. To date, Afarian said, the TrueCar board had not initiated its own litigation against the defendants named in the Delaware complaint.
“TrueCar and certain of its officers and directors continue to be exposed to substantial liability for their violations of the federal securities law,” he said.
“Accordingly, a pre-suit demand upon the Board was, and is, a useless and futile act. Thus, plaintiff rightfully brings this action to vindicate the company's rights against its wayward fiduciaries and hold them responsible for the damages they have caused to TrueCar.”
TrueCar did not respond Tuesday to an email seeking comment on the complaint.
Afarian, who has invested in TrueCar since March 2015, is represented by Frank J. Johnson and Phong L. Tran of Johnson Fistel in New York and Michael I. Fistel Jr. from the firm's Marietta, Georgia, office. Blake A. Bennett of Cooch and Taylor is acting as local counsel.
An online docket-tracking service did not list attorneys for TrueCar on Tuesday.
The case, filed in the U.S. DIstrict Court for the District of Delaware, is captioned Afarian v. Perry.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllElon Musk Has a Lot More Than a 'Tornetta' Appeal to Resolve in Delaware
5 minute readTesla Shareholders Move to Consolidate Cases Over Musk's Focus on X, AI
4 minute read'When Does It End?' Chancellor Asks Defense Counsel in Dispute Over Musk Compensation
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
- 2Many Southeast Law Firms Planned New, Smaller Offices in 2024
- 3On the Move and After Hours: Goldberg Segalla, Faegre Drinker, Pashman Stein
- 4Recent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
- 5‘Not A Kindergarten Teacher’: Judge Blasts Keller Postman, Jenner & Block, in Mass Arb Dispute
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250