equity line of credit and line of credit (“LOC”) accounts. 10-9-2017 12-CV-05227 (C.D. Cal.) Zaghian v. THQ Inc., et al. 11-6-2017 For more information Re Defendants: write to: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Brian J. Nicholas I, Porritt Farrell and Paul J. Pucino (“Defendants”) LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP violated Sections 10(b) and Section 20(a) of 1101 30th Street NW the Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Washington, D.C. 20007 Amended Complaint, Defendants violated these statutes by disseminating false and misleading information concerning THQ’s highly touted uDraw game. Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants assured investors that the market demand for the uDraw would significant growth, “generate profitability, and cash,” and result in the quarter” in the Company’s history. “largest However, within roughly one month of reiterating their confidence in the uDraw, Defendants lowered their expected net sales for the quarter by 25% due to uDraw sales. By early February 2012, Defendants revealed that uDraw sales were still far weaker than represented and, in fact, they would be ceasing production and distribution of the uDraw altogether as well as taking a $30.3 million impairment charge. When this information became public, the Amended Complaint alleges that the share price fell and shareholders were damaged. The lawsuit seeks money damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
equity line of credit and line of credit (“LOC”) accounts. 10-9-2017 12-CV-05227 (C.D. Cal.) Zaghian v. THQ Inc., et al. Re Defendants: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Brian J. Farrell and Paul J. Pucino (“Defendants”) violated Sections 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Amended Complaint, Defendants violated these statutes by disseminating false and misleading information concerning THQ’s highly touted uDraw game. Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants assured investors that the market demand for the uDraw would “generate significant growth, profitability, and cash,” and result in the “largest quarter” in the Company’s history. However, within roughly one month of reiterating their confidence in the uDraw, Defendants lowered their expected net sales for the quarter by 25% due to uDraw sales. By early February 2012, Defendants revealed that uDraw sales were still far weaker than represented and, in fact, they would be ceasing production and distribution of the uDraw altogether as well as taking a $30.3 million impairment charge. When this information became public, the Amended Complaint alleges that the share price fell and shareholders were damaged. The lawsuit seeks money damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. 11-6-2017 For more information write to: Nicholas I, Porritt LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street NW Washington, D.C. 20007