Cases
Aqua Metals, Inc. (NASDAQ: AQMS)
Corporate Governance / Derivative
Overview
Overview
- Date:
- 3/9/2018
- Case Caption:
- Stafford v. Clarke, er al.
- Stock Symbol:
- AQMS
- Status:
- Filed
- Filing Date:
- 3/9/2018
- Court:
- U.S. District Court: District of Delaware
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against Aqua Metals, Inc. (NASDAQ: AQMS) on behalf of long-term stockholders. Our investigation concerns whether the board of directors of Aqua Metals has breached their fiduciary duties to the company.
On May 9, 2017, Aqua Metals held a conference call to discuss its Q1 2017 results. On the call, Defendant Stephen R. Clarke (“Clarke”), the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Aqua Metals, stated that “it took longer than we planned to get the breaking and separation up and running.” On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $4.34 per share, or 26%, to close at $12.31 per share on May 10, 2017, thereby injuring investors.
Thereafter, on August 9, 2017, the Company held a conference call to discuss its Q2 2017 results. On the call, Clarke disclosed that the Company had made and installed improvements such that “breaking and separation is now operational,” and “breaking and separation is operating reliably.” On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $2.56 per share, or 23.6%, to close at $8.31 per share on August 10, 2017, thereby injuring investors.
On October 23, 2017, the Company issued a press release entitled “Aqua Metals Provides Update on Plant’s Operations.” Therein, the Company disclosed that Aqua Metals had only “produced small quantities of AquaRefined lead during the commissioning process” and that “under certain conditions, the operators would need to periodically assist the lead removal.” On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.96 per share, or 17.9%, to close at $4.41 per share on October 23, 2017, thereby injuring investors.
Finally, on November 9, 2017, after the market closed, Aqua Metals issued a press release entitled “Aqua Metals Provides Third Quarter 2017 Corporate Update.” Therein, the Company revealed that it “faced . . . many challenges as [it] worked to ramp up production.” On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.08 per share, or 2.1%, to close at $3.71 per share on November 10, 2017, thereby further injuring investors.
The complaint filed in a related class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Aqua Metals’ breaking and separating process was facing substantial obstacles due to AquaRefining’s need for a much higher degree of separation than is normal in the industry; (2) that the Company’s breaking and separating process was not operating reliably or efficiently; (3) that the breaking and separating obstacles and issues were negatively impacting the Company’s output; (4) that the Company’s four “operating modules” were being used primarily for experimentation, rather than production; (5) that module operators were assisting with lead removal; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the ramp up of the Company’s recycling process was being significantly hindered and delayed; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Aqua Metals’ business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On May 9, 2017, Aqua Metals held a conference call to discuss its Q1 2017 results. On the call, Defendant Stephen R. Clarke (“Clarke”), the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Aqua Metals, stated that “it took longer than we planned to get the breaking and separation up and running.” On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $4.34 per share, or 26%, to close at $12.31 per share on May 10, 2017, thereby injuring investors.
Thereafter, on August 9, 2017, the Company held a conference call to discuss its Q2 2017 results. On the call, Clarke disclosed that the Company had made and installed improvements such that “breaking and separation is now operational,” and “breaking and separation is operating reliably.” On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $2.56 per share, or 23.6%, to close at $8.31 per share on August 10, 2017, thereby injuring investors.
On October 23, 2017, the Company issued a press release entitled “Aqua Metals Provides Update on Plant’s Operations.” Therein, the Company disclosed that Aqua Metals had only “produced small quantities of AquaRefined lead during the commissioning process” and that “under certain conditions, the operators would need to periodically assist the lead removal.” On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.96 per share, or 17.9%, to close at $4.41 per share on October 23, 2017, thereby injuring investors.
Finally, on November 9, 2017, after the market closed, Aqua Metals issued a press release entitled “Aqua Metals Provides Third Quarter 2017 Corporate Update.” Therein, the Company revealed that it “faced . . . many challenges as [it] worked to ramp up production.” On this news, the Company’s stock price fell $0.08 per share, or 2.1%, to close at $3.71 per share on November 10, 2017, thereby further injuring investors.
The complaint filed in a related class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Aqua Metals’ breaking and separating process was facing substantial obstacles due to AquaRefining’s need for a much higher degree of separation than is normal in the industry; (2) that the Company’s breaking and separating process was not operating reliably or efficiently; (3) that the breaking and separating obstacles and issues were negatively impacting the Company’s output; (4) that the Company’s four “operating modules” were being used primarily for experimentation, rather than production; (5) that module operators were assisting with lead removal; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the ramp up of the Company’s recycling process was being significantly hindered and delayed; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Aqua Metals’ business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.