The Shaw Group, Inc. - 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

The Shaw Group, Inc. Summary: The original complaint alleges that the company misrepresented its financial outlook between the class period. During that period, company insiders sold Shaw shares at inflated prices, the complaint alleges, garnering proceeds in excess of $80 million. The complaint alleges that the company also sold $490 million of convertible zero coupon liquid option notes during that period. The company's revenue and earnings were inflated, the complaint says, because Shaw improperly established and drew on reserve accounts set up in connection with the acquisition of Stone & Webster Inc. and IT Group in 2002.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that such results were not prepared or reported in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and deceived investors as to the Company's true performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Shaw securities during the Class Period. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants artificially inflated the Company's reported revenues and earnings by improperly establishing and drawing on reserve accounts established in connection with a series of large acquisitions, including the acquisition of Stone & Webster Inc. in July 2000 and the acquisition of The IT Group in May 2002. The complaint further alleges that defendants prematurely recognized revenue in violation of Shaw's own purported policies and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and that defendants failed to disclose the extent to which Shaw was vulnerable to changes in power generation market conditions.

The complaint further alleges that the truth about the company's performance emerged after the market closed on June 10, 2004 when Shaw announced that it had been notified by the SEC that the SEC was conducting an inquiry that appeared to focus on the Company's accounting for acquisitions. On this news, Shaw stock, which had traded at a class period high of $62.37, fell 12.4% from a closing price of $12.28 on June 10, 2004 to a closing price of $10.75 on the next trading day (June 14, 2004) on more than four times normal volume. During the class period, Company insiders sold Shaw shares at prices artificially inflated by defendants' materially false and misleading statements.

According to the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2008, after the filing of the Thompson lawsuit, nine additional purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed and other actions may also be commenced. All of these actions were consolidated under the Thompson caption in the (the District Court) District Court, and the District Court appointed a lead plaintiff to represent the members of the purported class. We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action, which was denied. We then moved to certify the matter for immediate appeal, which the District Court granted, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the Fifth Circuit) granted leave to appeal. On July 29, 2008, the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court’s denial of our motion to dismiss the consolidated action and remanded the consolidated action to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. The District Court entered its order dismissing the consolidated action on August 29, 2008.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3490
Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Misc. Fabricated Products

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	The Shaw Group, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	SGR
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.shawgrp.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Earl Thompson, et al. v. The Shaw Group, Inc., et al.

COURT: E.D. Louisiana	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-1685
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Helen G. Berrigan
DATE FILED: 06/16/2004	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/19/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 06/10/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Geller Rudman, PLLC. 197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432 (voice) 561.750.3000, (fax) 888.262.3131, info@geller-rudman.com Glancy and Binkow 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 (voice) 310-201-9150, (fax) , info@glancylaw.com Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10017 (voice) 212.907.0700, (fax) 212.818.0477, info@glrslaw.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 Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 206.749.5544, (fax) 206.749.9978, info@lerachlaw.com Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York) One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119 (voice) 212.594.5300, (fax) 212.868.1229, info@milbergweiss.com Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106 (voice) 800.797.5499, (fax) 860.493.6290, sn06106@AOL.com Schiffrin & Barroway LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbclasslaw.com The Emerson Firm 2228 Cottondale Avenue, Suite 100, Little Rock, AR, 72202 (voice) 800.663.9817, (fax) 501.907.2556, epllp@emersonpoynter.com 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: 10

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/16/2004
Amended Complaint for Violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/29/2004
Order
Type: Order of Consolidation		Date on the document: 07/23/2004
Order and Reasons
Type: Order		Date on the document: 12/14/2004
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice Pursuant to Fed. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 02/03/2005

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Earl Thompson, et al. v. The Shaw Group, Inc., et al.

COURT: E.D. Louisiana	DOCKET NUMBER: 04-CV-1685
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Helen G. Berrigan
DATE FILED: 11/03/2005	SOURCE: Business Wires
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/19/2000	CLASS PERIOD END: 06/10/2004
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Consolidated Complaint
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Boca Raton) 197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432 (voice) 561.750.3000, (fax) 56.750.3364, info@lerachlaw.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San Diego) 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101 (voice) 206.749.5544, (fax) 206.749.9978, info@lerachlaw.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/11/2005
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/01/2005
Civil Minutes
Type: Other		Date on the document: 05/24/2006
Defendants' Motion to Certify for immediate Appeal the Order Dated May 24, 2006
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 09/07/2006
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/28/2007
Mandate
Type: Other		Date on the document: 08/20/2008
Judgment
Type: Other		Date on the document: 08/29/2008
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/29/2008

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Husar
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/15/2004
Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
Case Name and/or Number: Donald Lomax, et al. v. The Shaw Group, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/20/2004
Second Amended Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint
Case Name and/or Number: Larry F. Reusche, et al. v. The Shaw Group, Inc., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 07/12/2006

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

�