Nath v. Lightspeed Commerce Inc. et al.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP assisted the Defendants. Pomerantz LLP, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Levi & Korsinsky LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP acted for the Plaintiffs.

The securities action was brought on behalf of a class of defrauded investors concerning allegations that Lightspeed Commerce Inc. overstated the strength of its business while concealing the Company’s declining organic growth and the deterioration of its business.

Lightspeed is a commerce software provider that offers a cloud-based platform to small and midsize businesses that enables omni-channel consumer experiences, including payment processing, accounting, point of sale capabilities, order-ahead and curbside pickup options, product and menu management, employee and inventory management, analytics and reporting, multi-location connectivity, loyalty programs and customer management.

Allegations against Lightspeed include that: (i) the Company had misrepresented the strength of its business by overstating its customer count, gross transaction volume (“GTV”), and increase in Average Revenue Per User (“ARPU”), while concealing its declining organic growth and the overall deterioration of its business; (ii) Lightspeed had overstated the benefits and value of its various acquisitions; and (iii) as a result, the Company had overstated its financial position and prospects. 

On September 10, 2020, Lightspeed issued its IPO based on Offering Documents that touted the strength of its business, including its strong track-record of growing revenue per customer over time, and its ability to accelerate ARPU, and its strategy to grow GTV through acquisitions.

On November 5, 2020, Lightspeed announced its second quarter 2021 financial results, including a 56% year-over-year increase in GTV and a 62% year-over-year increase in software and payments revenue, aided by increased ARPU and a growing customer base that now included 100,000 customer locations globally. CFO Mussey touted that it was “one of the most exceptional quarters in the history of Lightspeed.”

Throughout the class period, Lightspeed also touted several acquisitions, including Upserve, Vend, Ecwid and NuORDER, that built on its strategic vision to transform its commerce platform expand its customer base and retail footprint.

For the Plaintiffs:Jeremy Alan Lieberman (Picture), J. Alexander Hood, Thomas Henry Przybylowski and Tamar A Weinrib (Pomerantz LLP), Gregory Linkh (Glancy Prongay & Murray), Adam Apton (Levi & Korsinsky), David Avi Rosenfeld (Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd). 

For the Defendants: Alex Drylewski and William John O’Brien III (Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom).

Involved fees earner: Gregory Linkh – Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP; Adam Apton – Levi & Korsinsky, LLP; Alexander Hood II – Pomerantz LLP ; Jeremy Lieberman – Pomerantz LLP ; Thomas Przybylowski – Pomerantz LLP ; Tamar Weinrib – Pomerantz LLP ; David Rosenfeld – Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd; Alexander Drylewski – Skadden; William O’Brien – Skadden;

Law Firms: Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP; Levi & Korsinsky, LLP; Pomerantz LLP ; Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd; Skadden;

Clients: Debrob Investments Limited; Duvnjak Simo; Forest Diego Ltd.; Lightspeed Commerce Inc.; Nath Kishore; Ricks Chad;

Sonia Carcano

Author: Sonia Carcano