According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Walgreens' business and prospects, including the purported benefits of Walgreens' strategic partnership with Alliance Boots GmbH. Specifically, defendants publicly announced goals for fiscal year 2016 of $1 billion in combined synergies and $9 to $9.5 billion in adjusted earnings before interest and taxes ("EBIT") for the combined entity, but concealed a $1.8 to $2.3 billion fiscal year 2016 earnings shortfall and the reasons for the shortfall from the investing public. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and/or omissions during the Class Period, the price of Walgreens stock traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of $76.08 per share.

According to the law firm press release, SQM is engaged in the production and distribution of specialty plant nutrients, iodine and its derivatives, lithium and its derivatives, potassium chloride and potassium sulfate, industrial chemicals, and other commodity fertilizers.

According to the law firm press release, Orexigen is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of pharmaceutical product candidates for the treatment of obesity, including Contrave, which it claims "regulates appetite and energy expenditure through [central nervous system] activity."

According to the law firm press release, this case alleges that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements with respect to the safety and efficacy of the Company's drug Macrilen™. A November 6, 2014, press release by the Company brought these facts to light by announcing that the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter refusing to approve the Company's New Drug Application because of "the lack of complete and verifiable source data for determining whether patients were accurately diagnosed with AGHD.

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint charges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, including they overstated non-controlling interests in calculating adjusted funds from operations, a key metric that measures the Company's earnings and cash flow.

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges that Sea World failed to disclose in its IPO documents that it (a) had improperly cared for and mistreated its Orca population which adversely impacted trainer and audience safety; (b) continued to feature and breed an Orca that had killed and injured numerous trainers; and (c) consequently created material uncertainties and risks existing at the time of IPO that could adversely impact attendance at its family oriented parks. The lawsuit claims that when details of the Company's improper practices were revealed by the documentary film Blackfish, SeaWorld misled investors by claiming the decrease in attendance at its parks was caused by Easter holiday and other factors. The complaint asserts that the decline in attendance was really caused by the mounting negative publicity from the improper practices at SeaWorld that were revealed by the Blackfish film.

According to the law firm press release, Santander is a specialized consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance and unsecured consumer lending products. The Company's primary business is the indirect origination of retail installment contracts principally through manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of new and used vehicles to retail consumers. In connection with the Company's IPO, Santander's selling stockholders sold approximately 85 million shares of Class A common stock to the public at a price of $24.00 per share.

According to the law firm press release, BlackBerry is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of wireless solutions for the worldwide mobile communications market. The Company provides platforms and solutions for access to email, voicemail, instant messaging, short message service, Internet and Intranet-based applications, and browsing through the development of integrated hardware, software, and services.

According to the law firm press release, the complaint charges SandRidge and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. SandRidge, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an independent natural gas and oil company in the United States. The Company engages in the exploration, development, and production of oil and gas properties.

According to the law firm press release, this action was brought against Defendants for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents for the March 2010 Offering were negligently prepared and failed to disclose material information about Orrstown's loan portfolio, underwriting practices, and internal controls. The complaint further alleges that Orrstown knowingly and/or recklessly continued to make false and misleading statements after the March 2010 Offering concerning the quality of Orrstown's loan portfolio, internal controls and lending practices while simultaneously assuring the investing public about the quality of Orrstown's management, underwriting procedures, and internal controls.

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the full impact of certain manufacturing flaws on the Company's earnings; (2) the Company was improperly recognizing revenue concerning certain products in its systems business; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

According to a press release dated February 23, 2012, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and future prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the Company had overbilled New York City hundreds of millions of dollars on the CityTime Project, a project associated with the modernization of New York City's employee payroll system, over a multi-year period; (b) that, as a result of the Company's known, but undisclosed, overbilling practices, its operating results during the Class Period were materially misstated; (c) that its overbilling practices subjected the Company to numerous undisclosed risks, including monetary risks and reputational risks, particularly because government agencies are the Company's primary customers and any harm to its reputation and/or relationships with such agencies would adversely affect its future revenues and growth prospects; (d) that, as a result of the foregoing circumstances, the Company violated applicable accounting standards associated with the recognition of revenue and the disclosure and accounting for loss contingencies; (e) that the Company's financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and were materially false and misleading; (f) that certifications issued by defendants Kenneth C. Dahlberg and Mark W. Sopp associated with the Company's internal and disclosure controls were materially false and misleading; and (g) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its business and prospects.

According to a press release dated January 13, 2012, the complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to a press release dated May 9, 2011, the action charges CHS and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company's financial results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact that CHS was systematically overcharging Medicare, one of its principal sources of revenue.

According to a press release dated March 15, 2011, the complaint charges Finisar and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Finisar is a provider of optical subsystems and components that connect short-distance local area networks, storage area networks, longer distance metropolitan area networks, fiber-to-the-home networks, cable television networks and wide area networks.