 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Newpark Resources, Inc. Summary: On October 9, 2007, the Settlement Fairness Hearing was held before Judge Marcel Livaudais. That day, the Court granted the motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses. According to the Order, the Court awards attorneys' fees of 30% of the Settlement Fund and $92,646.89 in expenses. The Court also granted the motion for approval of the Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds. Lastly, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, approving the settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice.
On August 1, 2007 the judge entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a Fairness Hearing for October 9, 2007. Parties entered a Notice of Pendency informing class members of a settlement fund created in the amount of $9,240,000 cash and including any interest that may accrue during the settlement process. The notice also states that plaintiffs' attorneys intend to apply for fees 30% of the settlement and reimbursement of expenses not to exceed $250,000.
According to a press release dated April 13, 2007, Newpark Resources, Inc. announced today that it has reached settlements with the plaintiffs in shareholder class action and derivative litigation. As in all shareholder class and derivative actions, the settlement is subject to court approval. Once approved, the settlements will resolve all class and derivative litigation against the Company, its former and current directors, and former officers. During 2006, several securities class action lawsuits and derivative actions were filed against the Company, certain current and former directors, and former officers of the Company. These actions were commenced following the Company's disclosure of an internal investigation into potential irregularities in the processing and payment of invoices at one of its subsidiaries, Soloco Texas, LP ("Soloco"), and alleged improper granting, recording and accounting of backdated grants of stock options to executives. Newpark Resources, Inc. Under the terms of the settlement, Newpark will pay $1,550,000, and the Company's directors and officers' liability insurance carrier will pay $8,300,000. Both amounts include the cost of certain legal fees and administration costs. As part of the settlement, the Company is preserving certain claims it may have against its former CEO and CFO for matters arising from the potential invoicing irregularities at Soloco and the backdating of options. Newpark will accrue its share of the settlement costs, along with the legal fees incurred to conclude this settlement, in the first quarter of 2007.
As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, between April 21, 2006 and May 9, 2006, five lawsuits asserting claims against us for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. All five lawsuits have been transferred to Judge Marcel Livaudais who has consolidated these actions as In re: Newpark Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation. Following the filing of the Amendment No. 2 to our Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for 2005 (filed on October 10, 2006), the plaintiffs filed (on November 9, 2006) a Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud (the “Consolidated Class Complaint”) against us and [certain] directors and officers. The Consolidated Class Complaint alleges that we and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. These allegations arise from our disclosure of an internal investigation into potential irregularities in the processing and payment of invoices at one of our subsidiaries, Soloco Texas, LP, and alleged improper granting, recording and accounting of backdated grants of our stock options to our executives. The Consolidated Class Complaint does not specify the damages sought by the Plaintiffs and no discovery has been conducted to date.
The original Complaint charges Newpark and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning Newpark's business and operations caused the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Newpark provides fluids management, environmental, and oilfield services, including drilling fluids sales, engineering services and onsite drilling fluids processing services, to the oil and gas exploration and production industry. The Complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period representations regarding Newpark were materially false and misleading when made because the Company failed to disclose irregularities with the processing and payment of invoices by the Company's subsidiary, Soloco Texas, LP. As a result, defendants' Class Period statements concerning Newpark's operations and financial performance were materially false and misleading.
The complaint further alleges that on or around April 17, 2006, Newpark issued a press release announcing a Company investigation into the processing and payment of invoices at Soloco Texas, LP, and that Newpark's CFO and former CEO had been placed on administrative leave pending the completion of the investigation. This news shocked the market, causing shares of Newpark to plummet that same day by $1.28 per share, to close on April 17, 2006, at $6.14 per share -- more than 17% below the previous day's close, which was before disclosure of the invoice irregularities and consequent investigation.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3533
Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil Well Services & Equipment
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Newpark Resources, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | NR |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.newpark.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Sandra M. Kim, et al. v. Newpark Resources, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 04/21/2006 | ||
| Order And Reasons | |||
| Type: Order Appointing LP/LC | Date on the document: 08/16/2006 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: Newpark Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Securities Fraud | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 11/09/2006 | ||
| Lead Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Class Action Settlement | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 7/27/2007 | ||
| Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement And Providing For Notice | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 8/1/2007 | ||
| Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 10/9/2007 | ||
| Order Granting Motion For An Award Of Attorneys' Fees And Expenses | |||
| Type: Order Approving AF&E | Date on the document: 10/9/2007 | ||
| US District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 10/09/2007 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Jan Wallace, et al. v. Newpark Resources, Inc., et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 05/05/2006 | ||
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