Bayard Drilling Technologies, 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

Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc. Conclusion: According to the Order entered on October 9, 2002, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for order for Distribution of Class Settlement Fund. Earlier, on July 16, 2001, the Court entered the Order and Final Judgment approving the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated April 9, 2001, as fair, reasonable and adequate for the settlement of all claims asserted by the Class against the Defendants in the Complaint. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Counsel an award of attorney fees in the amount of $1,033,333.00 and $167,510.75 in reimbursement of expenses, paid from the Settlement Funds and with interest.

On May 7, 2001 Plaintiffs entered into a proposed settlement of this action that will resolve all claims of the plaintiffs and the Class against defendants. A Settlement Fund consisting of $3,100,000 in cash, plus interest, has been established.

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit purport to sue on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of Common Stock on or traceable to the Initial Public Offering. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Oklahoma Securities Act. The plaintiffs allege that the registration statement and prospectus for the Initial Public Offering contained materially false and misleading information and omitted to disclose material facts. In particular, the plaintiffs allege that such registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose financial difficulties of Chesapeake, the Company's largest customer, and the effects of such difficulties on Chesapeake's ability to continue to provide the Company with substantial drilling contracts. The petitions further allege that the Company failed to disclose pre-offering negotiations with R.T. Oliver Drilling, Inc., whom the plaintiffs allege was a related party, for the purchase of drilling rigs. In addition, the petitions allege that the Company failed to disclose that its growth strategy required costly refurbishment of older drilling rigs that would dramatically increase the Company's costs, which could not be sustained by internally generated cash flows, and would negatively impact the Company's liquidity.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 1381
Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil Well Services & Equipment

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	PRIVATE
COMPANY WEBSITE:

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Tom Yuan, et al. v. Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc., et al.

COURT: W.D. Oklahoma	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-00171
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Vicki Miles-LaGrange
DATE FILED: 02/03/1998	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/04/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/03/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Other
PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
Jones, Givens, Gotcher & Bogan, PC. 3800 First Place Tower, 15 East Fifth Street, Tulsa, OK, 74103-4309 (voice) 918.581.8200, (fax) , jweger@jonesgivens.com Lytle Soule & Curlee 119 N Robinson Ave, Suite 1200, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 (voice) 405.235.7471, (fax) , 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 Norman, Edem, McNaughton & Wallace , , , (voice) , (fax) , Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP 276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, New York, NY, 10001 (voice) 212.686.8004, (fax) 212.686.8005, lawyer@lawssb.com Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 7

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT

Type:		Date on the document:

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re Bayard Drilling Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation

COURT: W.D. Oklahoma	DOCKET NUMBER: 98-CV-00171
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Vicki Miles-LaGrange
DATE FILED: 07/30/1998	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/04/1997	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/03/1998
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated and/or Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) , Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP 276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, New York, NY, 10001 (voice) 212.686.8004, (fax) 212.686.8005, lawyer@lawssb.com Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.545.4600, (fax) 212.686.0114, newyork@whafh.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 4

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action, Hearing On Proposed Settlement And Attorneys' Fee Petition And Right To Share In Settlement Fund
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 02/03/1998
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 98-CV-171
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/20/1999
Order and Final Judgment
Type: Order		Date on the document: 07/16/2001
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/09/2002

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

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

�