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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT