ILNews

Angie's List hit with shareholder suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Angie’s List’s CEO William Oesterle and four other top executives made a series of false or misleading statements about the company’s prospects that inflated its stock price earlier this year as they sold $13 million of their own shares, a lawsuit seeking class-action status alleges.

Bringing the case on behalf of shareholders Eva and Harold Baron is Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, a national securities litigation firm that led $7.3 billion in settlements for former investors of scandal-plagued energy giant Enron Corp.

Robbins Geller said it filed the suit on Monday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  

The suit alleges multiple violations of federal securities regulations and seeks unspecified financial damages on behalf of common shareholders between Feb. 14 and Oct. 23 of this year.

The 27-page complaint said Oesterle was the biggest benefactor, selling 486,400 shares for a net $10.4 million.  

It wasn’t immediately clear if the stock sales were required per terms of the executives' stock option plans, however.

Also listed as defendants are co-founder and chief marketing officer Angela Hicks Bowman; controller Charles Hundt; former chief financial officer Robert R. Millard; and former chief technology officer Manu Thapar.

Broadly, the suit recounts a litany of positive statements made by Oesterle and other executives during earnings calls and in presentations to analysts and shareholders.  

In fact, the Indianapolis-based firm that provides reviews of service providers (such as plumbers and roofers) by its members exceeded analysts' expectations during much of 2013.

“Based on the positive mantra” of executives, the suit alleges, Angie’s stock price hit a high of $28 last July. At the same time, executives were selling shares, “with the price of the company’s stock artificially inflated based on their misstatements.”

A key issue in the complaint is that the company was increasingly relying on providing free memberships in order to “artificially” boost its subscriber figure.

The suit cites an interview that The Wall Street Journal conducted with Oesterle that indicated  Angie’s was cutting the subscription cost for new members in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Indianapolis to $10 from $40.

The market didn’t respond well to the news, with Angie’s shares falling more than 17 percent on Oct. 3.   

The stock would fall from $28 earlier in the summer to a low of around $12 this fall. In trading Tuesday morning, shares had dropped 2.5 percent to $14.27.

The company went on to report a third quarter loss of $13.5 million, or 23 cents a share, which was worse than the 20-cents-per-share loss that analysts were led to expect “based on defendants’ bullish” statements, the suit alleges.

Angie’s List spokeswoman Cheryl Reed said Tuesday that the company would have no comment about the lawsuit.

Robbins Geller’s local counsel is Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & Patterson LLP.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT