Defendant Name:
        
        Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc.
    
    Defendant Type:
    
        Public Company
    
   
        SIC Code:
        
            7389
        
    
    
        CUSIP:
        
            76155G20
        
    
    
        
            Document Reference:
        
        comp-pr2020-221
    
    Document Details
    
    
        
            Legal Case Name
        
        SEC v. Revolution Lighting Technologies, Inc., Robert LaPenta, James DePalma, Daniel O'Neal, and Allen Garner
    
    
        
        
            Document Name
        
        
            Complaint
        
    
    
        
        
            Document Date
        
        
            24-Sep-2020
        
    
    
    
        
        
            Document Format
        
        
            Civil Proceeding
        
    
    
    
        
            
                Case Number
            
            
                20-cv-01440
            
        
            
                
                    Federal District Court
                
                
                    Connecticut, District of Connecticut
                
            
             
    
    
        
            Allegation Type
        
        
            
            Issuer Reporting and Disclosure
        
    
 
    
        
            Document Summary
        
        
            The SEC stated: "Between the end of 2014 and mid-2018, Revolution and Revolution executives LaPenta, DePalma, Garner, and O'Neal falsely inflated the amount of revenue Revolution reported. Revolution published these inflated revenues in financial reports it filed with the Commission, made available to the investing public, and incorporated into a public stock offering. The inflated revenues were also included in public statements by Revolution and its executives. By doing so, Defendants misled investors and potential investors in Revolution by making it appear that the company was selling more lighting products, and making more revenue, than it actually was." 
        
    
 
    
        
    
            
    
    
        Other Defendants in Action: