| Company: | Apollo Group Inc. |
| Ticker Symbol: | NASD: APOL |
| Class Period: | November 28, 2001 to October 18, 2006 |
| Date Filed: | Nov-02-06 |
| Lead Plaintiff Deadline: | Jan-02-07 |
| Court: | District, AZ |
| Allegations: |
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apollo Group Inc. ("Apollo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APOL) and certain key officers and/or directors in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. This action has been brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Apollo securities during the period between November 28, 2001 and October 18, 2006 (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements to artificially inflate the value of Apollo stock. Specifically, it is alleged that throughout the Class Period, the defendants represented to the Class that it issued stock options to management in accordance with all applicable laws and rules while, in fact, it "backdated" options granted to all levels of management. On June 9, 2006, in the midst of a nation-wide options scandal in connection with the backdating of options, Apollo announced that it had performed a review of its stock option practices during fiscal 2000-2004 and initially concluded that it had "complied with all applicable laws," and it would hire an outside firm to review those conclusions. The Company flatly denied that it had backdated options. These statements were false and misleading when made because the defendants failed to disclose or indicate that they knew that the option grant process was deficient and could cause the Company to restate its financial statements.
The Company shocked the investing public when, on October 18, 2006, it disclosed that on June 23, 2006 the Company's Board of Directors appointed a special committee of two independent Board members to oversee the investigation of Apollo's stock option grant practices. Further, it was disclosed that the independent outside counsel retained by the special committee had themselves engaged independent accounting advisors to assist in the investigation. In addition, the Company for the first time disclosed that "[v]arious deficiencies in the process of granting and documenting stock options have been identified to date." Finally, and most unfortunately for Apollo shareholders, the Company disclosed for the first time that "[t]he accounting impact of these matters has not been quantified. There can be no assurance that the results of the investigation will not require a possible restatement of the Company's financial statements when the potential errors are quantified and assessed."
The market reacted quickly to these announcements. Apollo's stock price plummeted to $37.55 per share from its prior day close of $48.68 per share, a 22.86% drop in one day, on massive volume of 28,738,800 shares, more than fifteen times more than the prior day's volume.
If you acquired the securities of the defendants during the Class Period you may, no later than the Lead Plaintiff Deadline shown above, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff through counsel of your choice. You may also choose to remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff must meet certain requirements.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements to artificially inflate the value of Apollo stock. Specifically, it is alleged that throughout the Class Period, the defendants represented to the Class that it issued stock options to management in accordance with all applicable laws and rules while, in fact, it "backdated" options granted to all levels of management. On June 9, 2006, in the midst of a nation-wide options scandal in connection with the backdating of options, Apollo announced that it had performed a review of its stock option practices during fiscal 2000-2004 and initially concluded that it had "complied with all applicable laws," and it would hire an outside firm to review those conclusions. The Company flatly denied that it had backdated options. These statements were false and misleading when made because the defendants failed to disclose or indicate that they knew that the option grant process was deficient and could cause the Company to restate its financial statements.
The Company shocked the investing public when, on October 18, 2006, it disclosed that on June 23, 2006 the Company's Board of Directors appointed a special committee of two independent Board members to oversee the investigation of Apollo's stock option grant practices. Further, it was disclosed that the independent outside counsel retained by the special committee had themselves engaged independent accounting advisors to assist in the investigation. In addition, the Company for the first time disclosed that "[v]arious deficiencies in the process of granting and documenting stock options have been identified to date." Finally, and most unfortunately for Apollo shareholders, the Company disclosed for the first time that "[t]he accounting impact of these matters has not been quantified. There can be no assurance that the results of the investigation will not require a possible restatement of the Company's financial statements when the potential errors are quantified and assessed."
The market reacted quickly to these announcements. Apollo's stock price plummeted to $37.55 per share from its prior day close of $48.68 per share, a 22.86% drop in one day, on massive volume of 28,738,800 shares, more than fifteen times more than the prior day's volume.
If you acquired the securities of the defendants during the Class Period you may, no later than the Lead Plaintiff Deadline shown above, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff through counsel of your choice. You may also choose to remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff must meet certain requirements.
