Aug. 20, 2013
/PRNewswire/ -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Ecotality, Inc. ("Ecotality" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ECTY) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of
, and docketed under 13-cv-03840, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Ecotality between
April 16, 2012
August 9, 2013
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Ecotality securities during the Class Period, you have until
October 14, 2013
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
. To discuss this action, contact
Robert S. Willoughby
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
Ecotality, engages in designing, manufacturing, testing, and commercializing electric vehicle (EV) charging and energy storage systems in
the United States
and internationally. It primary products include the Blink line of charging stations for passenger vehicle applications, such as Blink Level 2 residential and commercial chargers, and the Blink DC Fast Chargers, as well as a turnkey network operating system for EV drivers, commercial businesses, and utilities; and the Minit-Charger line of fast-charge systems for off-road industrial applications, including material handling operations and airport ground service equipment.
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 that: (1) the Company was facing an impeding shutdown of funds from the United States Department of Energy ("DOE"); (2) the Company was inappropriately recognizing revenue and drawing down expenses on its contract with DOE; (3) the Company's products contained significant design and manufacturing defects; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and, (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.