 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Xethanol Corporation Summary: According to a press release dated December 3, 2007, Xethanol Corporation (AMEX: XNL), a renewable energy company, announces that on November 28, 2007, the company agreed in principle to settle the seven consolidated putative class action lawsuits pending against it captioned as In re Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation, 06 Civ. 10234 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.). The agreement was reached during a mediation overseen by a retired United States District Court Judge in West Palm Beach, Florida, and attended by counsel for plaintiffs, counsel for the company and the individual defendants and counsel for the company’s insurance carriers. The agreement remains subject to final negotiated writings executed by the parties and approval by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In a press release dated September 10, 2007, a federal judge has sustained a consolidated securities suit against the company itself. Judge Harold Baer, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Friday denied Xenathol's motion to dismiss a putative class action accusing the ethanol research and production company of deliberately misstating its ethanol production capabilities in order to raise its stock price. The suit also accuses two former Xethanol officers of what amounts to insider trading. The plaintiffs pointed to Xenathol statements implying that Xenathol possessed sufficient “scienter,” or knowledge, to have made misstatements, according to Baer.
On February 7, 2007, the Court entered the Order consolidating several actions under In Re Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation, 06cv10234. On March 15, 2007, the Court entered the Order appointing the Counsell Group as Lead Plaintiffs and appointing Kahn Gauthier Swick is appointed class counsel. On March 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and the defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss the Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
The original complaint charges Xethanol and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, Xethanol repeatedly assured investors that it could sustain itself on revenue from corn ethanol production while successfully commercializing biomass ethanol production. In fact, however, as investors have now learned, Xethanol was suffering from a host of undisclosed adverse factors that negatively impacted its business and it appears that they do not have the ability to commercialize biomass ethanol in the foreseeable near term. As investors learned the truth about Xethanol, shares of the Company declined precipitously -- falling from a Class Period high of over $15 per share in April 2006, to less than $4.00 per share by the end of the Class Period. While shares of Xethanol were artificially inflated during the Class Period, certain insiders were able to liquidate millions of dollars of their personally held Xethanol shares.
Particularly, the complaint alleges that Xethanol: (1) misrepresented management's experience and standard of ethics; (2) omitted disclosing a series of related party transactions and association with investors who had alarming records of stock fraud and related shareholder abuses; (3) materially overstated the Company's profitability by under-reporting the true costs associated with completing a biomass to ethanol production facility, and by failing to make proper adjustments to the Company's financial reports; (4) lacked any reasonable basis to assert that the Company was operating according to plan or could achieve the near-term commercialization of biomass ethanol production, or achieve the guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by the Company; and (5) caused plaintiffs and other Class members to purchase Xethanol common stock at artificially inflated prices.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3250
Sector: Services
Industry: Waste Management Services
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Xethanol Corporation |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | XNL |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.xethanol.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Milton Ariail, et al. v. Xethanol Corporation, 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: 10/23/2006 | ||
| Order | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 03/14/2007 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: Xethanol Corporation Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 3/27/2007 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 09/07/2007 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Joseph Spoto, et al. v. Xethanol Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 10/31/2006 | ||
| Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Cheryl Difruscio, et al. v. Xethanol Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 10/31/2006 | ||
| Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Chad Jones, et al. v. Xethanol Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 11/10/2006 | ||
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