TrueCar Hit With 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
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Business Court Insider
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's 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-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, San Antonio, Texas-based 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 Alfarian 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
© 2025 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 AllShareholder Democracy? The Chatter Elon Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Is Spurring Between Lawyers and Clients
6 minute readLitigation Leaders: Mark Jones of Nelson Mullins on Helping Clients Assemble ‘Dream Teams’
Litigators of the Week: Rolling Back Elon Musk's $56B Tesla Compensation Package
Litigators of the Week: Quinn Emanuel Slashes $137M Racial Discrimination Verdict Against Tesla by Nearly 98%
Trending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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