UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

VICTOR BLAHUT, Individually and on Behalf 

of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ACCRETIVE HEALTH, INC., MARY A. 

TOLAN, and JOHN T. STATON, 

Defendants 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No.: 12-3279 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff Victor Blahut (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all other persons 

similarly situated, by his undersigned attorneys, for his complaint against defendants, alleges the 

following based upon personal knowledge as to himself and his own acts, and information and 

belief as to all other matters, based upon, inter alia, the investigation conducted by and through 

his attorneys, which included, among other things, a review of the defendants’ public documents, 

conference calls and announcements made by defendants, United States Securities and Exchange 

Commission (“SEC”) filings, wire and press releases published by and regarding Accretive 

Health, Inc. (“Accretive” or the “Company”), analysts’ reports and advisories about the 

Company, and information readily obtainable on the Internet. Plaintiff believes that substantial 

evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable opportunity 

for discovery. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all 

persons other than defendants who purchased Accretive securities between March 2, 2011 and 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:1
 2 

April 24, 2012, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover damages caused by 

defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under § 10(b) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder 

against the Company and certain of its top officials. 

2. Accretive offers health care revenue cycle consulting services. The Company 

helps its customers avoid bad debt write-offs, uncompensated care, payor denials and 

corresponding administrative write-offs, and lost revenue for missed charges. 

3. On March 29, 2012, Accretive revealed that in response to a lawsuit filed by 

Minnesota Attorney General (“AG”), the Company had agreed to no longer collect debts on 

behalf of Fairview Health Services (“Fairview”). 

4. On this news, Accretive shares declined $4.46 per share or 18.5%, to close at 

$19.60 per share on March 29, 2012. 

5. On April 24, 2012, the Minnesota AG released a six-volume report detailing 

Accretive’s aggressive debt collection practices, including demanding payment from patients 

who were currently seeking medical care in hospitals. The next day, an article published by The 

New York Times (“NY Times”) discussed the Minnesota AG’s report. 

6. On these revelations, Accretive shares declined $7.74 per share or nearly 42%, to 

close at $10.75 per share on April 25, 2012. 

7. Throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading 

statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, 

operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements 

and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was violating privacy standards under the Health 

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and the Health Information Technology 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:2
 3 

for Economic and Clinical Health (“HITECH”) Act; (2) the Company failed to encrypt protected 

patient health information; (3) the Company failed to sufficiently limit access of protected health 

information; (4) the Company was in violation of certain Minnesota state laws, among others, 

debt collection, privacy and consumer protection laws; (5) the Company lacked adequate internal 

and financial controls; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements were 

materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 

8. As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous 

decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have 

suffered significant losses and damages. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

9. The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of 

the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. §78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 

C.F.R. §240.10b-5). 

10. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to §27 

of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. §78aa) and 28 U.S.C. §1331. 

11. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to §27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§78aa and 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) as Accretive’s principal place of business is located within this 

District. 

12. In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this Complaint, 

defendants, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, 

including but not limited to, the United States mail, interstate telephone communications and the 

facilities of the national securities exchange. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:3
 4 

PARTIES 

13. Plaintiff as set forth in the attached certification purchased Accretive securities at 

artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby. 

14. Defendant Accretive is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of 

business located at 401 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2700, Chicago, IL 60611. Accretive’s 

common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the ticker symbol 

“AH.” 

15. Defendant Mary A. Tolan (“Tolan”), a founder of the Company, has served as its 

President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and as a Director since November 2003. 

16. Defendant John T. Staton (“Staton”) has served as the Company’s Chief Financial 

Officer (“CFO”) and treasurer since September 2005. 

17. The defendants referenced above in ¶¶ 15 through 16 are sometimes referred to 

herein as the “Individual Defendants.” 

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 

Background 

18. Accretive is a leading provider of services that help healthcare providers generate 

sustainable improvements in their operating margins and healthcare quality while also improving 

patient, physician and staff satisfaction. The Company’s core service offering in revenue cycle 

management services assists U.S. healthcare providers in more efficiently managing their 

revenue cycles, which encompass patient registration, insurance and benefit verification, medical 

treatment documentation and coding, bill preparation and collections. Fairview is a $2.8 billion 

healthcare system based in Minnesota. In November 2010, Accretive and Fairview entered into 

a five-year agreement for the Company’s Quality and Total Cost of Care Service platform. For 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:4
 5 

2010 and 2011, Fairview accounted for 10.7% and 12.2% of Accretive’s total net services 

revenue, respectively. 

Materially False and Misleading 

Statements Issued During the Class Period 

19. On March 2, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial 

results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2010. For the fourth quarter, the 

Company reported net income of $5.5 million, or $0.06 diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) and 

revenue of $170 million, as compared to net income of $2.3 million, or $0.05 diluted EPS and 

revenue of $137.5 million for the same period a year ago. For the year, the Company reported 

net income of $12.6 million, or $0.13 diluted EPS and revenue of $606.3 million, as compared to 

net income of $6.5 million, or $0.15 diluted EPS and revenue of $510.2 million for the same 

period a year ago. 

20. On March 18, 2011, the Company filed an annual report for the period ended 

December 31, 2010 on Form 10-K with the SEC, which was signed by, among others, 

Defendants Tolan and Staton, and reiterated the Company’s previously announced annual 

financial results and financial position. In addition, the Form 10-K contained signed 

certifications pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) by Defendants Tolan and 

Staton, stating that the financial information contained in the Form 10-K was accurate and that 

they disclosed any material changes to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

21. The 10-K represented the following, in relevant part: 

We provide our revenue cycle and quality and total cost of care service offerings 

pursuant to managed service contracts with our customers. In rendering our 

services, we must comply with customer policies and procedures regarding 

charity care, personnel, compliance and risk management as well as applicable 

federal, state and local laws and regulations. 

*** 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:5
 6 

Data and information regarding our customers’ patients is encrypted when 

transmitted over the internet or traveling off-site on portable media such as 

laptops or backup tapes. 

*** 

The customers we serve are subject to a complex array of federal and state laws 

and regulations. These laws and regulations may change rapidly, and it is 

frequently unclear how they apply to our business. We devote significant efforts, 

through training of personnel and monitoring, to establish and maintain 

compliance with all regulatory requirements that we believe are applicable to our 

business and the services we offer. 

22. On March 30, 2011, the Company announced the completion of a public offering 

of 7,475,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at a price of $23.50 per share. 

23. On May 11, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial 

results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2011. For the quarter, the Company reported net 

income of $160,000 or $0.00 diluted EPS and revenue of $163.7 million, as compared to net 

income of $143,000, or $0.00 diluted EPS and revenue of $125.9 million for the same period a 

year ago. 

24. On May 12, 2011, the Company filed a quarterly report for the period ended 

March 31, 2011 on Form 10-Q with the SEC, which was signed by Defendants Tolan and Staton 

and reiterated the Company’s previously announced quarterly financial results and financial 

position. In addition, the Form 10-Q contained signed certifications pursuant to SOX by 

Defendants Tolan and Staton, stating that the financial information contained in the Form 10-Q 

was accurate and that they disclosed any material changes to the Company’s internal control over 

financial reporting. 

25. On August 10, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial 

results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2011. For the quarter, the Company reported net 

income of $8.6 million, or $0.08 diluted EPS, and revenue of $183.6 million, as compared to net 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:6
 7 

income of $3.9 million, or $0.04 per diluted EPS, and revenue of $151.9 million for the same 

period a year ago. 

26. On August 12, 2011, the Company filed a quarterly report for the period ended 

June 30, 2011 on Form 10-Q with the SEC, which was signed by Defendants Tolan and Staton 

and reiterated the Company’s previously announced quarterly financial results and financial 

position. In addition, the Form 10-Q contained signed certifications pursuant to SOX by 

Defendants Tolan and Staton, stating that the financial information contained in the Form 10-Q 

was accurate and that they disclosed any material changes to the Company’s internal control over 

financial reporting. 

27. On November 9, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing its 

financial results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2011. For the quarter, the Company 

reported net income of $7.3 million, or $0.07 diluted EPS and revenue of $219 million, as 

compared to net income of $2.9 million, or $0.03 diluted EPS and revenue of $158.4 million for 

the same period a year ago. 

28. On November 10, 2011, the Company filed a quarterly report for the period ended 

September 30, 2011 on Form 10-Q with the SEC, which was signed by Defendants Tolan and 

Staton, and reiterated the Company’s previously announced annual financial results and financial 

position. In addition, the Form 10-Q contained signed certifications pursuant to SOX by 

Defendants Tolan and Staton, stating that the financial information contained in the Form 10-Q 

was accurate and that they disclosed any material changes to the Company’s internal control over 

financial reporting. 

29. On January 19, 2012, the Minnesota Attorney General filed a lawsuit against 

Accretive alleging that the Company had violated health privacy laws, state debt collection laws 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:7
 8 

and state consumer protection laws. Specifically, the lawsuit is in connection with a medical 

privacy security breach that occurred in July 2011 when an Accretive employee’s laptop was 

stolen from his rental car. The laptop contained unencrypted medical records of 23,500 patients. 

On February 3, 2012, the Minnesota Department of Commerce temporarily suspended 

Accretive’s debt collection license in the state of Minnesota. 

30. On February 29, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing its 

financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2011. For the fourth 

quarter, the Company reported net income of $13.2 million, or $0.13 diluted EPS and revenue of 

$260 million, as compared to net income of $5.5 million, or $0.06 diluted EPS and revenue of 

$170 million for the same period a year ago. For the year, the Company reported net income of 

$29 million, or $0.29 diluted EPS and revenue of $826.3 million, as compared to net income of 

$12.6 million, or $0.13 diluted EPS and revenue of $606.3 million for the same period a year 

ago. 

31. On February 29, 2012, the Company filed an annual report for the period ended 

December 31, 2011 on Form 10-K with the SEC, which was signed by, among others, 

Defendants Tolan and Staton, and reiterated the Company’s previously announced annual 

financial results and financial position. In addition, the Form 10-K contained signed 

certifications pursuant to SOX by Defendants Tolan and Staton, stating that the financial 

information contained in the Form 10-K was accurate and that they disclosed any material 

changes to the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. 

32. The Form 10-K represented the following in relevant part: 

We provide our revenue cycle and quality and total cost of care service offerings 

pursuant to managed service contracts with our customers. In rendering our 

services, we must comply with customer policies and procedures regarding 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:8
 9 

charity care, personnel, compliance and risk management as well as applicable 

federal, state and local laws and regulations. 

*** 

Data and information regarding our customers’ patients is encrypted when 

transmitted over the internet or traveling off-site on portable media such as 

laptops or backup tapes. 

*** 

The customers we serve are subject to a complex array of federal and state laws 

and regulations. These laws and regulations may change rapidly, and it is 

frequently unclear how they apply to our business. We devote significant efforts, 

through training of personnel and monitoring, to establish and maintain 

compliance with all regulatory requirements that we believe are applicable to our 

business and the services we offer. 

33. The statements referenced in ¶¶ 20 – 22; 24 – 29; 31 - 33 above were materially 

false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse 

facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them, including that: (1) the 

Company was in violation of HIPAA and HITECH’s privacy standards; (2) the Company failed 

to encrypt protected patient health information; (3) the Company failed to limit access of 

protected health information to only certain necessary individuals; (4) the Company was 

violating certain Minnesota state laws, among others, debt collection, privacy and consumer 

protection laws; (5) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) as a 

result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements were materially false and misleading at all 

relevant times. 

THE TRUTH BEGINS TO EMERGE 

34. On March 29, 2012, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC where it 

announced that in the Company’s “ongoing effort to resolve its outstanding issues with the 

Minnesota Attorney General, Accretive Health and Fairview Health Services have decided to 

amend their revenue cycle operations agreement to transition the management of those 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:9
 10 

operations to Fairview leadership.” The Form 8-K further revealed the following, in relevant 

part: 

The company is currently working with Fairview on transition plans. Accretive 

Health and Fairview will continue their work together on their Quality and Total 

Cost of Care initiative for population health management. 

Accretive Health expects the revenue impact of the new revenue cycle operations 

arrangement with Fairview to be in the range of $62 million to $68 million, or 

approximately 6% of the company's expected 2012 revenue. Accretive Health is 

working to offset the majority of this revenue shortfall with work from new and 

existing customers. 

 

35. On this news, Accretive shares declined $4.46 per share or 18.5%, to close at 

$19.60 per share on March 29, 2012. 

36. On April 24, 2012, Minnesota Attorney General released a six-volume report on 

the practices of non-profit hospital and clinic operator Fairview Health Services and one of its 

services providers, Accretive. The report alleges civil violations of state and federal debt 

collection regulations, laws governing nonprofits and patient-privacy protections. According to 

an article by Forbes, the report alleges “Accretive [is] inserting debt collectors into Fairview’s 

admission process, and in some cases, forcing patients to pay before treatment was given.” 

Moreover, the report describes Accretive’s culture as “boiler-room-style sales atmospheres” 

where the Company urged employees to demand payment before medical care was provided and 

in other situations, demanded to collect payment at patients’ bedsides. 

37. On April 25, 2012, the NY Times published an article entitled “Debt Collector Is 

Faulted for Tough Tactics in Hospitals.” 

Hospital patients waiting in an emergency room or convalescing after surgery are 

being confronted by an unexpected visitor: a debt collector at bedside. 

 

This and other aggressive tactics by one of the nation’s largest collectors of 

medical debts, Accretive Health, were revealed on Tuesday by the Minnesota 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:10
 11 

attorney general, raising concerns that such practices have become common at 

hospitals across the country. 

 

The tactics, like embedding debt collectors as employees in emergency rooms and 

demanding that patients pay before receiving treatment, were outlined in hundreds 

of company documents released by the attorney general. And they cast a spotlight 

on the increasingly desperate strategies among hospitals to recoup payments as 

their unpaid debts mount. 

 

To patients, the debt collectors may look indistinguishable from hospital 

employees, may demand they pay outstanding bills and may discourage them 

from seeking emergency care at all, even using scripts like those in collection 

boiler rooms, according to the documents and employees interviewed by The New 

York Times. 

 

In some cases, the company’s workers had access to health information while 

persuading patients to pay overdue bills, possibly in violation of federal privacy 

laws, the documents indicate. 

 

The attorney general, Lori Swanson, also said that Accretive employees may have 

broken the law by not clearly identifying themselves as debt collectors. 

 

Accretive Health has contracts not only with two hospitals cited in Minnesota but 

also with some of the largest hospital systems in the country, including Henry 

Ford Health System in Michigan and Intermountain Healthcare in Utah. Company 

executives declined to comment on Tuesday. 

Although Ms. Swanson did not bring action against the company on Tuesday, she 

said she was in discussions with state and federal regulators about a coordinated 

response to Accretive Health’s practices across the country. Regulators in Illinois, 

where Accretive is based, are watching the developments closely, according to 

Sue Hofer, a spokeswoman with the State Department of Financial and 

Professional Regulation. 

 

“I have every reason to believe that what they are doing in Minnesota is simply 

company practice,” Ms. Swanson said in an interview, but declined to provide 

details. 

In January, Ms. Swanson filed a civil suit against Accretive after a laptop with 

patient information was stolen, saying that the company had violated state and 

federal debt collection laws and patient privacy protections. That action is still 

pending. 

An Accretive spokeswoman declined to comment on whether other states were 

looking into its practices and issued a brief statement, “We have a great track 

record of helping hospitals enhance their quality of care.” In its annual report, the 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:11
 12 

company said it was cooperating with the attorney general to resolve the issues in 

Minnesota. 

38. On this news, Accretive’s securities plummeted $7.74 per share or nearly 42%, to 

close at $10.75 per share on April 25, 2012. 

PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

39. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class, consisting of all those who purchased or 

otherwise acquired Accretive securities during the Class Period (the “Class”); and were damaged 

thereby. Excluded from the Class are defendants herein, the officers and directors of the 

Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal 

representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which defendants have or had a 

controlling interest. 

40. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable. Throughout the Class Period, Accretive securities were actively traded on the 

NYSE. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can 

be ascertained only through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds or 

thousands of members in the proposed Class. Record owners and other members of the Class 

may be identified from records maintained by Accretive or its transfer agent and may be notified 

of the pendency of this action by mail, using the form of notice similar to that customarily used 

in securities class actions. 

41. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as all 

members of the Class are similarly affected by defendants’ wrongful conduct in violation of 

federal law that is complained of herein. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:12
 13 

42. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the 

Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation. 

Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with those of the Class. 

43. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and 

predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class. Among the 

questions of law and fact common to the Class are: 

 whether the federal securities laws were violated by defendants’ acts as 

alleged herein; 

 whether statements made by defendants to the investing public during the 

Class Period misrepresented material facts about the business, operations and 

management of Accretive; 

 whether the Individual Defendants caused Accretive to issue false and 

misleading financial statements during the Class Period; 

 whether defendants acted knowingly or recklessly in issuing false and 

misleading financial statements; 

 whether the prices of Accretive securities during the Class Period were 

artificially inflated because of the defendants’ conduct complained of herein; 

and 

 whether the members of the Class have sustained damages and, if so, what is 

the proper measure of damages. 

44. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore, as 

the damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and 

burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class to individually 

redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as 

a class action. 

45. Plaintiff will rely, in part, upon the presumption of reliance established by the 

fraud-on-the-market doctrine in that: 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:13
 14 

 defendants made public misrepresentations or failed to disclose material facts 

during the Class Period; 

 the omissions and misrepresentations were material; 

 Accretive securities are traded in an efficient market; 

 the Company’s shares were liquid and traded with moderate to heavy volume 

during the Class Period; 

 the Company traded on the NYSE and was covered by multiple analysts; 

 the misrepresentations and omissions alleged would tend to induce a 

reasonable investor to misjudge the value of the Company’s securities; and 

 Plaintiff and members of the Class purchased and/or sold Accretive securities 

between the time the defendants failed to disclose or misrepresented material 

facts and the time the true facts were disclosed, without knowledge of the 

omitted or misrepresented facts. 

46. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to a 

presumption of reliance upon the integrity of the market. 

COUNT I 

(Against All Defendants For Violations of 

Section 10(b) And Rule 10b-5 Promulgated Thereunder)

47. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

48. This Count is asserted against defendants and is based upon Section 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC. 

49. During the Class Period, defendants engaged in a plan, scheme, conspiracy and 

course of conduct, pursuant to which they knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, transactions, 

practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon Plaintiff and the 

other members of the Class; made various untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state 

material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:14
 15 

under which they were made, not misleading; and employed devices, schemes and artifices to 

defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. Such scheme was intended to, 

and, throughout the Class Period, did: (i) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and 

other Class members, as alleged herein; (ii) artificially inflate and maintain the market price of 

Accretive securities; and (iii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase 

Accretive securities and options at artificially inflated prices. In furtherance of this unlawful 

scheme, plan and course of conduct, defendants, and each of them, took the actions set forth 

herein. 

50. Pursuant to the above plan, scheme, conspiracy and course of conduct, each of the 

defendants participated directly or indirectly in the preparation and/or issuance of the quarterly 

and annual reports, SEC filings, press releases and other statements and documents described 

above, including statements made to securities analysts and the media that were designed to 

influence the market for Accretive securities. Such reports, filings, releases and statements were 

materially false and misleading in that they failed to disclose material adverse information and 

misrepresented the truth about Accretive’s finances and business prospects. 

51. By virtue of their positions at Accretive, defendants had actual knowledge of the 

materially false and misleading statements and material omissions alleged herein and intended 

thereby to deceive Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, or, in the alternative, defendants 

acted with reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed or refused to ascertain and disclose 

such facts as would reveal the materially false and misleading nature of the statements made, 

although such facts were readily available to defendants. Said acts and omissions of defendants 

were committed willfully or with reckless disregard for the truth. In addition, each defendant 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:15
 16 

knew or recklessly disregarded that material facts were being misrepresented or omitted as 

described above. 

52. Defendants were personally motivated to make false statements and omit material 

information necessary to make the statements not misleading in order to personally benefit from 

the sale of Accretive securities from their personal portfolios. 

53. Information showing that defendants acted knowingly or with reckless disregard 

for the truth is peculiarly within defendants’ knowledge and control. As the senior managers 

and/or directors of Accretive, the Individual Defendants had knowledge of the details of 

Accretive’s internal affairs. 

54. The Individual Defendants are liable both directly and indirectly for the wrongs 

complained of herein. Because of their positions of control and authority, the Individual 

Defendants were able to and did, directly or indirectly, control the content of the statements of 

Accretive. As officers and/or directors of a publicly-held company, the Individual Defendants 

had a duty to disseminate timely, accurate, and truthful information with respect to Accretive’s 

businesses, operations, future financial condition and future prospects. As a result of the dissemination of the aforementioned false and misleading reports, releases and public statements, 

the market price of Accretive securities was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. In 

ignorance of the adverse facts concerning Accretive’s business and financial condition which 

were concealed by defendants, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class purchased Accretive 

securities at artificially inflated prices and relied upon the price of the securities, the integrity of 

the market for the securities and/or upon statements disseminated by defendants, and were 

damaged thereby. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:16
 17 

55. During the Class Period, Accretive securities were traded on an active and 

efficient market. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, relying on the materially false and 

misleading statements described herein, which the defendants made, issued or caused to be 

disseminated, or relying upon the integrity of the market, purchased shares of Accretive 

securities at prices artificially inflated by defendants’ wrongful conduct. Had Plaintiff and the 

other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said securities, or 

would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid. At the time of the 

purchases by Plaintiff and the Class, the true value of Accretive securities was substantially 

lower than the prices paid by Plaintiff and the other members of the Class. The market price of 

Accretive securities declined sharply upon public disclosure of the facts alleged herein to the 

injury of Plaintiff and Class members. 

56. By reason of the conduct alleged herein, defendants knowingly or recklessly, 

directly or indirectly, have violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 

promulgated thereunder. 

57. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and 

the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their respective purchases 

and sales of the Company’s securities during the Class Period, upon the disclosure that the 

Company had been disseminating misrepresented financial statements to the investing public. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:17
 18 

COUNT II

(Violations of Section 20(a) of the 

Exchange Act Against The Individual Defendants) 

58. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the 

foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

59. During the Class Period, the Individual Defendants participated in the operation 

and management of Accretive, and conducted and participated, directly and indirectly, in the 

conduct of Accretive’s business affairs. Because of their senior positions, they knew the adverse 

non-public information about Accretive’s misstatement of income and expenses and false 

financial statements. 

60. As officers and/or directors of a publicly owned company, the Individual 

Defendants had a duty to disseminate accurate and truthful information with respect to 

Accretive’s financial condition and results of operations, and to correct promptly any public 

statements issued by Accretive which had become materially false or misleading. 

61. Because of their positions of control and authority as senior officers, the 

Individual Defendants were able to, and did, control the contents of the various reports, press 

releases and public filings which Accretive disseminated in the marketplace during the Class 

Period concerning Accretive’s results of operations. Throughout the Class Period, the Individual 

Defendants exercised their power and authority to cause Accretive to engage in the wrongful acts 

complained of herein. The Individual Defendants therefore, were “controlling persons” of 

Accretive within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In this capacity, they 

participated in the unlawful conduct alleged which artificially inflated the market price of 

Accretive securities. 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:18
 19 

62. Each of the Individual Defendants, therefore, acted as a controlling person of 

Accretive. By reason of their senior management positions and/or being directors of Accretive, 

each of the Individual Defendants had the power to direct the actions of, and exercised the same 

to cause, Accretive to engage in the unlawful acts and conduct complained of herein. Each of 

the Individual Defendants exercised control over the general operations of Accretive and 

possessed the power to control the specific activities which comprise the primary violations 

about which Plaintiff and the other members of the Class complain. 

63. By reason of the above conduct, the Individual Defendants are liable pursuant to 

Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for the violations committed by Accretive. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants as follows: 

A. Determining that the instant action may be maintained as a class action under 

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and certifying Plaintiff as the Class 

representative; 

B. Requiring defendants to pay damages sustained by Plaintiff and the Class by 

reason of the acts and transactions alleged herein; 

C. Awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class prejudgment and postjudgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees and other costs; and 

D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury. 

Dated: May 1, 2012 POMERANTZ HAUDEK 

GROSSMAN & GROSS, LLP 

By:________s/ Patrick V. Dahlstrom 

 Patrick V. Dahlstrom 

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:19
 20 

Leigh Handelman Smollar

Joshua B. Silverman 

Louis C. Ludwig 

Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

Telephone: (312) 377-1181 

Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 

POMERANTZ HAUDEK 

GROSSMAN & GROSS, LLP 

Marc I. Gross 

Jeremy A. Lieberman 

100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor 

New York, New York 10017-5516 

Telephone: (212) 661-1100 

Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:20
Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:21
Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:22
Case: 1:12-cv-03279 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/12 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:23