Lawsuit Overview
May 13, 2009 - The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered judgment dismissing the complaint.
February 10, 2009 - The lead plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the underwriter defendants without prejudice.
December 12, 2008 - The lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed.
October 27, 2008 - Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
September 24, 2008 - - The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of investors who purchased EnerNOC Inc (NASDAQ: ENOC) common shares between November 1, 2007 and February 27, 2008 and in relation to the secondary public offering on November 14, 2007. The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements between November 1, 2007 and February 27, 2008.
June 30, 2008 - Lead plaintiff motions were filed.
June 3, 2008 - All cases were consolidated.
March 14, 2008 - An additional investor filed a complaint.
March 6, 2008 - Another investor filed a complaint.
March 3, 2008 - An investor in shares of EnerNOC Inc (NASDAQ: ENOC) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against EnerNOC Inc over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between November 1, 2007 and February 27, 2008.
The complaint alleges that on November 1, 2007, EnerNOC Inc announced its financial results for the third quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2007. EnerNOC reported revenues of $19.1 million for the third quarter of 2007, compared to $11.0 million for the same period in 2006. Total revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2007, totaled $41.1 million. Cost of revenues for the third quarter of 2007 was $11.3 million, compared to $5.2 million for the same period in 2006. EnerNOC Inc represented that this was the highest quarterly revenue performance in EnerNOC Inc history and that sales of EnerNOC Inc’s demand response solutions accounted for substantially all of the third quarter revenue in both 2006 and 2007. The plaintiff alleges these statements were materially false and misleading when made because defendants knew, but failed to adequately reveal, that expenses were rising far faster than revenues creating a negative trend, and the increasing number of megawatts under management involved prolonged lags in the ability to recognize revenue.