On July 17, 2012, the Company disclosed that the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Lime had determined that the Company’s consolidated financial statements filed with the SEC on Form 10-K for the periods ended December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2011, and quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012, may no longer be relied upon. According to the Company, the Audit Committee made that determination based on the results of a partial internal review conducted by the Company’s management which was concluded on July 13, 2012. The Company further indicated that, based on the results of that partial internal review, the Company’s management and Audit Committee believe that some portion of the Company’s revenue was improperly recorded. Specifically, the Company stated that, “[i]n some cases, it appears that non-existent revenue may have been recorded” and that “[i]n other cases, it appears that revenue may have been recorded earlier than it should have been.” Additionally, Lime Energy indicated that the misreporting may potentially require restatement of its previously issued financial statements and that the Company, under the supervision of the Audit Committee and with the assistance of outside counsel, is conducting an investigation of the misreporting.On this news, shares of the Company declined $0.91 per share, or 44.83%, to close on July 17, 2012, at $1.12 per share, on unusually heavy volume. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 75 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues the fight for the rights of shareholders and other victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of defrauded investors. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Lime Energy Co. (“Lime Energy” or the “Company”)(NASDAQ:LIME) and certain of its officers for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois under docket number 12 C 5704, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Lime Energy securities between May 13, 2010 and July 17, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”). If you are a shareholder who purchased Lime Energy securities during the Class Period, you have until September 18, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at email@example.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. Lime Energy is a provider of clean energy solutions. The Company’s services include integrated energy engineering, consulting and implementation of solutions which enable its customers to reduce their facilities’ energy consumption, lower their operating and maintenance costs and reduce their carbon footprint. 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) that the Company was improperly recording revenue; (2) that, as a result, the Company’s revenue and financial results were overstated; (3) that, as such, the Company’s financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.