An MF Global class action lawsuit was announced yesterday and today it was discovered that way more money was missing than originally thought. The MF Global class action lawsuit was put into motion when plaintiffs believed that $600 million was missing. Now, trustees overseeing the firm’s bankruptcy are reporting that there could be more than $1.2 billion missing.
Those who bought securities from MF Global Ltd. between November 5, 2009 and October 20, 2011 are eligible to participate in the MF Global class action lawsuit. You can even apply to become the lead plaintiff, since the case is so new right now.
Current and former officers of MF Global are named as defendants in the MF Global class action lawsuit. John Corzine once ran the company, interestingly. He ran the company as CEO starting in March 2010. It went bankrupt three weeks ago. The MF Global class action lawsuit alleges the company failed to disclose negative financial info from the investors, participated in “window dressing” of their books, and lacked good internal controls.
There has been a spike on the charts for securities class action lawsuits filed against Chinese companies listed US stock exchange. US-listed companies based in China (owned by Chinese) have undergone a rash of fraudulent accounting discoveries, prompting the wave of class actions. The specific type of securities class action causing the spike is against what is called a reverse merger.
A reverse merger is when a (foreign) company buys a US company as a shell company. Behind the scenes, the real company is operating on the shell company’s money raised on the stock market, only it’s not subject to rules associated with publicly traded companies in the US. In other words, the shell company raises money for the Chinese company and that Chinese company does not get reviewed and undergoes no regulatory processes. Anything could be happening in those accounting offices!
The Chinese reverse merger class action lawsuits are also prompted by numerous resignations of auditors in US-listed Chinese companies. Other problems this year with the Chinese reverse merger companies listed on the US stock exchanges involve accounting discrepancies as well.
What’s worse, even if the plaintiffs win any of the numerous Chinese reverse merger class action lawsuits pending at the moment, they may never recover their funds. Winning the class action lawsuit is not the same as collecting on that win. It’s very difficult to enforce the SEC accounting rules and US judiciary system in China, where we have no extradition treaty.
The Halliburton class action is actually a securities case from more than ten years ago. The case, brought by investors, alleges the company misled investors regarding the merit of certain mergers, liabilities in asbestos lawsuits, and value of the engineering and energy divisions.
This week’s news is that the case is to be heard in front of the Supreme Court. The nation’s highest court will decide whether the Halliburton shareholder lawsuit will be given class action status. The debate is over how much proof of wrongdoing the plaintiffs need to supply. If the plaintiffs are alleging marketplace manipulation, then what proof is necessary? That is what will be considered next week as the Supreme Court convenes to hear the Halliburton Securities lawsuit.
The case, Erica P. John Fund v. Halliburton Co. (09-1403), will likely be settled this summer, but at issue next week will be whether Halliburton hid information or misled investors in any way regarding the state of its financials.
Specifically, the merger with Dresser Industries, another energy company, was allegedly not as beneficial as Halliburton made it out to be in financial reports, according to plaintiffs’ attorney. Secondly, liability in asbestos lawsuits, was downplayed or hidden. Halliburton settled its asbestos lawsuits in 2005 to the tune of billions of dollars. Third, plaintiffs allege that Halliburton inflated the expectations on money to be made by its energy unit. The Supreme Court will hear the Halliburton class action on Monday April 25, 2011.
The Puda Coal securities lawsuit charges the Chinese company with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The class action lawsuit claims the directors of Puda Coal, Inc failed to disclose certain facts in their financial reports, which caused shareholders to more firmly believe in the health of their investments, or caused them to buy the shares in the first place by painting a rosier picture of the company than the actual truth.
The adverse events not mentioned in the Puda Coal financial reports were: 1) the Chairman had initiated unauthorized transfers of ownership of Shanxi Coal, a subsidiary of Puda Coal. 2) Puda Coal didn’t even own as much stock in Shanxi Coal as investors were led to believe. 3) transfers of ownership of Shanxi Coal was not only left out of reports to shareholders, but also ran contrary to what directors of Puda Coal stated when questioned about events. 4) Puda Coal incorporated the financial statements of Shanxi Coal improperly into its own. 5) Puda Coal lacked oversight of the company and especially of financial matters and therefore investors were mislead about financial conditions of Puda Coal since financial statements turned out to be false.
A ShengdaTech class action lawsuit was announced this week, as the Chinese company prepares to defend itself in court against allegations of violating the securities act of 1934. Shareholders who purchased stock in ShengdTech between March 15, 2010 and March 15, 2011 are eligible to join the ShengdaTech class action.
Known for its technology, research and development work on Nano Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (NPCC), ShengadaTech is a major player in the development of products developed in China for the emerging middle class in the rapidly urbanizing country. Their motto states they want to move from the term made in China to created in China, and their huge Research and Development division proves that commitment. They are focusing now on developing new uses for NPCC, mostly in tires and PVC products but also in ink, oil-based paint, and and paper industries.
The ShengdaTech class action is brought on behalf of shareholder clients by the law firm Pomerantz, which has offices in Chicago, Washington D.C. and New York City. The firm is considered one of the top securities class action law firms in the country. They specialize in breach of fiduciary duty, corporate misconduct, and securities fraud.
The ShengdaTech class action alleges several violations on the company’s part: 1)lack of control over financial oversight, 2)ShengdaTech’s financial statements were misleading and not prepared according to GAAP in the US, and 3) made positive statements about ShengdaTech stock with no reasonable basis for doing so.
On March 15 of this year, ShengdaTech announced that it was appointing a special committee to investigate financial discrepancies pointed out by auditors. As is often the case in securities class action lawsuits, the firm retained counsel and announced that it would not be filing certain tax documents. Typical response to this action is to suspend trading of the company’s stock, which indeed occurred that same day.
A securities class action lawsuit was filed against China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. yesterday by a law firm in Boca Raton, FL. Lawyers at Saxena White PA filed the China MediaExpress class action on behalf of investors who allege they were misled about the company’s business relationships and the extent of the company’s advertising network. The company, also known as CCME, produces advertising on buses in China, and is based in Hong Kong.
The China MediaExpress class action alleges that CCME overstated the number of buses in its advertising network, and also misrepresented its partnership with a government agency. The case states that CCME was therefore in violation of Federal securities laws in the United States.
China MediaExpress is part of a group of Chinese companies of around 370 allowed since 2004 to be listed on the Stock exchange in the US. These companies were allowed on the market without having to go through the steps of an IPO, or initial public offering.
China MediaExpress had several major shareholders based in the US, including a hedge fund out of New York, as well as AIG. They convinced investors and the public they were a legitimately-run company, partly because they had Deloitte as an auditor. The Hong Kong branch of Deloitte resigned last month, however, stating that they no longer had cooperation from China MediaExpress management. This, and the resignation of the company’s Chief Financial Officer, with the subsequent decline of stock price, began the movement toward a China MediaExpress class action.
Stockholders who purchased common stock between May 14, 2010 and March 11, 2011 can participate in the China MediaExpress lawsuit.
Shareholders have brought a Countrywide class action against the former home mortgage giant. Shareholders allege that Countrywide officers hid negative information regarding their business, causing investors to lose money when the stock finally went down due to bad business practices and risky financial behavior of Countrywide.
Countrywide is now owned by Bank of America, which bought the ailing financial company as it was facing bankruptcy in 2008 after the home mortgage crisis. Therefore, the Countrywide class action is actually a lawsuit against Bank of America. The former stockholders of Countrywide shares are accusing the company of securities fraud. This allegedly occurred when Countrywide’s officers did not provide effective oversight of the lending practices. They allegedly allowed risky behavior in the lending department as well as the underwriting of mortgages, which led to failing of the business and plummeting of the stock.
Financial companies who make risky loans are bound to assume that the rate of delinquencies and defaults will be higher, and therefore less profitable eventually, according to plaintiffs. By allegedly hiding the fact that they were making risky loans, Countrywide officials misled stockholders regarding the future value of their shares, hence the Countrywide class action lawsuit.
Countrywide’s former CEO, CFO and president were named personally in the Countrywide class action lawsuit.
Countrywide or Bank of America faces several class action lawsuits and Federal probes regarding their mortgage lending practices.
In this latest shareholder lawsuit, investors are filing a securities class action against the big box retailer, claiming they lost money due to misleading financial statements. The Best Buy Securities Class Action was brought by a San Diego law firm last Friday but has not yet achieved class action status. Best Buy is a Minnesota-based company, with headquarters in Richfield, MN. They face a securities class action due to alleged claims they used false and misleading financial statements.
Best Buy investors lost money when the company’s stock plummeted recently, and this Best Buy Class Action claims that is the fault of the false and misleading financial statements. The allegedly false statements were made regarding the company’s fiscal 2011 numbers. The false and misleading statements were allegedly made during shareholder conference calls and also included in press releases.
The fiscal 2011 outlook was made to look especially rosy, according to plaintiffs in the Best Buy securities class action, which is brought by shareholders who purchased Best Buy stock between September and December of 2010. Expectations for 2011 were based on 2010 reports, as is typical for US-based corporations. Potential investors buy stock based on predictions made by the company’s financial officers, who use financial reports to predict future earnings. Financial reporting is governed by a national set of rules and regulations so investors don’t get duped.
Which is exactly what the Best Buy securities class action alleges happened late last year. The plaintiffs claim they were duped into buying stock, and when the company missed its expectations by a wide margin, they lost money when stock price fell.
This Chevron securities lawsuit involves Atlas Energy Inc. shareholders and a settlement worth 10 cents per share. The US second-largest oil company Chevron, is in the final stages of purchasing Atlas Energy, a producer of natural gas. The sale is worth $3.56 billion, an offer that was first made in November 2010. Litigation on the Chevron securities lawsuit began when Atlas shareholders alleged that the merger between their company and the oil giant was based on unfair practices and an unfair merger price.
The Atlas shareholder lawsuit alleged that company directors breached their fiduciary duties when they agrees to an inadequate merger price and also that they used unfair practices. The Chevron securities lawsuit was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and defendants denied any wrongdoing.
This Chevron class action lawsuit has already reached settlement phase. They will pay an additional $.10 per share to holders of Atlas Energy Inc shares. This adds $7.8 million to the deal. Reliance Industries, LTD, had hoped for a chance to top Chevron’s offer to buy Atlas Energy Inc. but will not have the opportunity. The Mumbai-based energy company called itself “the most natural and obvious partner” to buy Atlas in a letter to the board this past January.