Lawsuit Overview
June 2, 2021 - The court was notified that a settlement had been reached by the parties.
December 30, 2020 - The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
June 29, 2020 - A consolidated complaint was filed.
October 11, 2019 - An investor in shares of Vivint Solar, Inc. (NYSE: VSLR) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Vivint Solar, Inc. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between March 5, 2019 and September 26, 2019.
Lehi, UT based Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to residential customers in the United States. Vivint Solar, Inc. reported that its annual Total Revenue rose from $268.02 million in 2017 to $290.32 million in 2018 and that its Net Income of $209.09 million in 2017 declined to a Net Loss of $15.59 million in 2018.
On September 27, 2019, short-seller Marcus Aurelius Value published a report stating that Vivint Solar, Inc “appears to have largely concealed a growing pattern of undisclosed lawsuits alleging the company has engaged in a nationwide fraud involving forged customer contracts.” Shares of Vivint Solar, Inc. (NYSE: VSLR) declined from $8.20 per share on September 18, 2019 to as low as $5.86 per share on September 27, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Vivint Solar, Inc. (NYSE: VSLR) common shares between March 5, 2019 and September 26, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws.
More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between March 5, 2019 and September 26, 2019, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company engaged in fraudulent practices, including forging customer contracts, that, as a result, the Company’s reported sales and megawatts installed were overstated, that these practices were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny, that, as a result, the Company’s earnings would be materially and adversely impacted, 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.