AgriBioTech, Inc. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

AgriBioTech, Inc. Conclusion: According to the docket dated April 23, 2002, on April 11, 2002, the Court entered an Order dismissing the action without prejudice. Earlier, on March 1, 2000, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant AgriBioTech Inc.’s motion to dismiss. It was also ordered that all claims against AgriBioTech are stayed pending withdrawal of AgriBioTech's petition for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy relief. All claims asserted against certain Individual Defendants were dismissed. It was further ordered that the parties file a status report advising the Court as to the status of the Bankruptcy proceedings.

The original complaint alleges that the public investors who invested in AgriBioTech based on the Company's reported financial results, its representations about the success of the Company's consolidation strategy and its forecasts of strong revenue and earnings growth in F98-F99, paid as high as $29-1/2 per share for AgriBioTech stock during the Class Period and have suffered millions of dollars in damage as a result of defendants' fraud. During F97 and F98, AgriBioTech reported favorable financial results with strong revenue growth and profitability causing the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated levels. Ultimately, AgriBioTech was forced by the SEC to change its accounting practices with regard to acquisitions and to disclose the extent of its accounting manipulations in prior quarters. AgriBioTech's reported revenues were, as a result of the manipulations, overstated by 20% in F97 and F98 and the loss it had actually incurred for F97 and F98 was converted into a profit. Upon these startling revelations, AgriBioTech's stock price declined to $8-1/8 per share, a more than 71% reduction from its Class Period high of $29-1/2.

Several purported class actions have also been filed in U.S. District Courts for the District of Nevada and Southern District of New York. The Complaints allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws (Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about ABT's strategies concerning its aggressive pursuit of pending and additional acquisitions, and its plans to secure and complete a buyout of all or part of the Company. The complaints further allege that as a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions concerning ABT's strategies, the price of ABT stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 0100
Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Crops

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	AgriBioTech, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	ABTX
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.agribiotech.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Ted Edwards, et al. v. AgriBioTech, Inc., et al.

COURT: D. New Mexico	DOCKET NUMBER:
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Philip M. Pro
DATE FILED: 1/14/1999	SOURCE: Other
CLASS PERIOD START: 9/24/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 8/26/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Alfred G. Yates, Jr. 429 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh , PA, 15219 (voice) 412.391.5164, (fax) , Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY) 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 800.217.1522, (fax) , info@bernlieb.com Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA) 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 800.449.4900, (fax) , support@milberg.com Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. , Philadelphia, PA, (voice) 800.993.3233, (fax) , sfprpc@op.net Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York) 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 5

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: AgriBioTech, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: D. Nevada	DOCKET NUMBER: 99-CV-144
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Philip M. Pro
DATE FILED: 7/6/1999	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 9/24/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 2/16/1999
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. , Philadelphia, PA, (voice) 800.993.3233, (fax) , sfprpc@op.net Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 310.209.2468, (fax) 310.209.2087, SSBNY@aol.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/06/1999
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/23/2002

OTHER DOCUMENTS
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Marc Packer, et al. v. AgriBioTech, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/08/1999
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Case Name and/or Number: Marc Packer, et al. v. AgriBioTech, et al.
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/11/2002

WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.

Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top

�