Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (Shell) : American Depository Receipts (ADR's) - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Litigation Activity Indices

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors

Register

_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School

Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (Shell) : American Depository Receipts (ADR's) Summary: The original complaint alleges defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and all amendments thereto by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that defendants’ deliberately violated accounting rules and guidelines relating to oil and gas reserves which resulted in a shocking and unprecedented overstatement of oil and gas reserves, the eventual disclosure of which damaged purchasers of Royal Dutch and Shell Transport securities and rocked the investment community.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Royal Dutch and Shell Transport had classified and reported, in SEC filings and other public documents, certain reserves as “proved reserves” from a project off the western coast of Australia called the Gorgon Joint Venture, and various projects in Nigeria. In fact, unbeknownst to investors, the reserves did not meet SEC and industry requirements necessary to be classified as “proved,” and were improperly reported as proved reserves in Royal Dutch’s and Shell Transport’s financial reports, thereby materially artificially inflating a key measure of the companies’ financial position and competitive standing. As a result of these material misrepresentations, Royal Dutch and Shell Transport’s true value in the marketplace was severely overstated and misunderstood.

The complaint further alleges that on January 9, 2004, Royal Dutch announced that it was going to write-down its proved oil and gas reserves by 20%, or 3.9 billion barrels, from 19.5 billion barrels to 15.6 billion barrels. The write-down: (a) cut Shell’s reserve life from 13.4 years to 10.6 years; (b) increased its worldwide 5-year average reserve replacement cost per barrel from $5.49 to $12.57 --- $7.06, or 128% greater than the industry average of $5.51; (c) increased Shell’s finding and development costs to $7.90 per barrel -- well above the costs of its competitors; and (d) reduced Shell’s Appraised Net Worth downward by up to 7.1%, or $9.6 billion. Following the announcement, Royal Dutch ADRs fell 7.87% from $52.76 to $48.61 on the NYSE and Royal Dutch ordinary shares fell by 7.10% from the U.S. equivalent of $52.91 to $49.15 on the Amsterdam exchange. Shell Transport ADRs were down 6.96% from $44.81 to $41.69 on the NYSE and Shell Transport ordinary shares were down 6.84% on the London exchange from the U.S. equivalent of $7.36 to $6.86. In addition, Moody’s placed the Aaa rating of Royal Dutch and Shell Transport under review for possible downgrade because the write-down materially and adversely affected the companies’ reserves-to-debt ratio. Following the belated disclosure, most analysts and commentators concluded that, because of the magnitude of the write-down and the clear SEC and industry guidelines relating to reserve classification, the reserve overstatements could not have been a result of error or accident, but rather, that the reserves were knowingly overstated to preserve the companies’ credit rating and to shore up their competitive position.

Proceedings where held on May 7, 2004, before Judge John W. Bissell and G. Donald Haneke. The motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel were granted. Pennsylvania Employees Retirement System was appointed lead plaintiff, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP was appointed as lead counsel, and Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas was appointed as liaison counsel. On September 13, 2004, the plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing various motions to dismiss in 2005.

According to a press release dated August 17, 2005, a US federal judge has ruled that a class action lawsuit for securities fraud against the Royal Dutch Shell PLC can now proceed. In his 147-page decision, US district court chief judge John Bissell said the plaintiffs 'adequately' provided reason for the court to look at the claims. Bissell also said that Shell, even if it is headquartered in the Netherlands, does not exempt it from being accountable in the US.

On September 19, 2005, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the Second Amended Complaint). The substantive allegations remain unchanged from those in the earlier complaint, except that the plaintiffs: dropped their section 14(a) claims; dropped their claims against all current directors; repleaded their claims on behalf of those who purchased shares after the January 9, 2004 announcement of the reserves recategorisation.

On April 17, 2007, Royal Dutch filed a motion to dismiss, and on May 7, 2007, Royal Dutch Shell filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On July 30, 2007, the Court entered the Order dismissing without prejudice the motion to dismiss and further dismissing without prejudice the motion for partial summary judgment.

According to an article dated March 11, 2008, Royal Dutch Shell Plc. said on March 6, 2008, that it had agreed in principle to settle a class action with American investors arising from its 2004 restatement of oil reserves, Reuters reports. According to Reuters, under the terms of the deal, the group of U.S. claimants -- who bought shares in the company in a period before the 2004 reserves restatement -- would receive a base settlement of $79.9 million, plus $2.95 million and interest. The deal is subject to the approval of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The proposed settlement complements a previously announced deal with non-U.S. investors under consideration by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals, Shell told Reuters. Approval of both settlements would put an end to all pending litigation arising out of the 2004 restatement.

On June 18, 2008, Judge Pisano signed the Order preliminarily certifying a class for settlement purposes and preliminarily approving the proposed settlement. The settlement is in the amount of settlement of $89,508,000 in cash, plus interest. On September 26, 2008, the Judge Pisano approved the settlement and awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $30,000,000 and expenses in the amount of $3,000,000. The action is dismissed with prejudice.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 2911
Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil & Gas - Integrated

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (Shell)
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	RD
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.shell.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

John Brockamp, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, et al.

COURT: D. New Jersey	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-00374
JUDGE NAME: Hon. John W. Bissell
DATE FILED: 01/29/2004	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/03/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/09/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Berger & Montague PC 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 800.424.6690, (fax) 215.875.4604, investorprotect@bm.net Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock, AR) P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438 (voice) 501.312.8500, (fax) 501.312.8505, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC) 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005 (voice) 202.408.4600, (fax) 202.408.4699, lawinfo@cmht.com Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York) 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.983.9330, (fax) 212.983.9331, Nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202 (voice) 410.332.0030, (fax) , pivenlaw@erols.com Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) , Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC , Chicago, IL, (voice) 800-470-6824, (fax) 312-621-1750, Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106 (voice) 800.797.5499, (fax) 860.493.6290, sn06106@AOL.com Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut) P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT, 06415 (voice) 860.537.5537, (fax) 860.537.4432, scottlaw@scott-scott.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 Spector Roseman & Kodroff (San Diego) 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 (voice) 215.496.0300, (fax) 215.496.6611, Vianale & Vianale LLP (former Boca Raton) The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town Center Road., Boca Raton, FL, 33486 (voice) 561.391.4900, (fax) 561.368.9274, info@vianalelaw.com Wechsler Harwood, LLP. 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022 (voice) 212.935.7400, (fax) 212.753.3630, info@whesq.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 13

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/29/2004
Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/25/2004
Opinion
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/30/2004
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 06/30/2004
Notice of Appeal/Application for a Certificate of Applicability
Type: Notice of Appeal		Date on the document: 10/06/2008

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In Re: Royal Dutch/Shell Transport Securities Litigation

COURT: D. New Jersey	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-00374
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Joel A. Pisano
DATE FILED: 09/19/2005	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/08/1999	CLASS PERIOD END: 03/18/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Second Amended and Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York) 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 800.217.1522, (fax) , info@bernlieb.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 09/13/2004
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/15/2005
Notice Of Appeal
Type: Notice of Appeal		Date on the document: 03/15/2005
Opinion
Type: Other		Date on the document: 08/09/2005
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/09/2005
Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 09/19/2005
Stipulation And Order Of Dismissal
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/19/2005
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 05/25/2006
Stipulation And Order Of Dismissal
Type: Order		Date on the document: 06/22/2006
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/14/2006
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 08/22/2006
Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal Of KPMG International
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 03/29/2007
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 07/30/2007
Opinion
Type: Other		Date on the document: 11/13/2007
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 11/13/2007
Order Dismissing Individual Defendants With Prejudice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/04/2008
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/17/2008
Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 05/21/2008
Declaration Of Jeffrey M. Haber In Support Of Proposed Class Representatives' Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Settlement Agreement And Class Certification
Type: Declaration		Date on the document: 06/17/2008
Findings And Order Preliminarily Certifying A Class For Settlement Purposes And Preliminarily Approving Proposed Settlement
Type: Order		Date on the document: 06/17/2008
Notice Of Lead Plaintiff's Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Settlement Agreement And Class Certification
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 06/17/2008
Notice Of Proposed Class Action Settlement, Motion For Attorneys' Fees, Settlement Hearing And Right To Appear
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 06/17/2008
Proof of Claim
Type: Other		Date on the document: 06/17/2008
Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 09/26/2008
Order Approving Settlement
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/26/2008
Notice Of Appeal
Type: Notice of Appeal		Date on the document: 10/22/2008
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 01/28/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 04/26/2010

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Cohen and Silverstein, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/23/2004
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Thomas Bennett III, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/03/2004
Notice Of Proposed Class Action Settlement, Settlement Hearing And Right To Appear
Case Name and/or Number: In Re Royal Dutch/Shell Transport ERISA Litigation
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 07/18/2005
Order
Case Name and/or Number: In Re: Royal Dutch/Shell Transport Securities Litigation
Type: Order		Date on the document: 01/26/2009

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

�