Lawsuit Overview
July 30, 2020 - A third amended complaint was filed.
April 14, 2020 - A second amended complaint was filed.
February 13, 2020 - An amended complaint was filed.
September 16, 2020 - An investor in shares of ProPetro Holding Corp. (NYSE: PUMP) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by ProPetro Holding Corp. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made connection with the Company’s March 2017 initial public offering and between March 17, 2017 and August 8, 2019.
Midland, TX based ProPetro Holding Corp., an oilfield services company, provides pressure pumping and other related services. ProPetro Holding Corp. reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $981.86 million in 2017 to over $1.7 billion in 2018 and that its Net Income increased from $12.61 million in 2017 to $173.86 million in 2018.
On August 8, 2019, ProPetro Holding Corp announced that it is delaying its second quarter earnings conference call and quarterly report, citing an ongoing review by its audit committee. Among other things, the review concerned related party transactions, potential conflicts of interest, and expense reimbursements. Shares of ProPetro Holding Corp. (NYSE: PUMP) declined from $21.83 per share in early July 2019 to as low as $10.19 per share on August 23, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of ProPetro Holding Corp. (NYSE: PUMP) common shares between March 17, 2017 and August 8, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between March 17, 2017 and August 8, 2019, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors, that the Company’s executive officers were improperly reimbursed for certain expenses, that the Company had engaged in certain undisclosed transactions with related parties, that the Company lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures, that the Company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting, and that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.