April 30, 2021 - A stipulation of settlement was filed by the parties.

May 20, 2020 - The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.

March 26, 2020 - A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.

February 20, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.

August 13, 2019 - An investor in shares of Granite Construction Incorporated (NYSE: GVA) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Granite Construction Incorporated in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between October 26, 2018 and August 1, 2019.

Watsonville, CA based Granite Construction Incorporated operates as an infrastructure contractor and a construction materials producer in the United States. Granite Construction Incorporated reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from over $2.98 billion in 2017 to over $3.31 billion in 2018 and that its Net Income declined from $69.09 million in 2017 to $42.41 million in 2018.

On July 29, 2019, after the market closed, Granite Construction Incorporated disclosed that second quarter 2019 financial results were negatively impacted by non-cash charges related to four legacy, unconsolidated heavy civil joint venture projects. As a result, Granite Construction Incorporated said it expected to report net loss per diluted share in the range of $2.05 to $2.10 per diluted share. Shares of Granite Construction Incorporated (NYSE: GVA) declined from $68.00 per share in early 2018 to as low as $30.54 per share on August 2, 2019.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Granite Construction Incorporated (NYSE: GVA) common shares between October 26, 2018 and August 1, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between October 26, 2018 and August 1, 2019, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company had assumed certain risks in connection with its heavy civil joint venture projects bid between 2012 and 2014; (2) that there was an “untenable” imbalance of risk sharing between the Company and the joint venture project owners; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur additional project costs for its joint venture projects; (4) the Company was reasonably likely to incur additional costs in connection with certain project disputes; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.