China Expert Technology, 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

China Expert Technology, Inc. Summary: A class action lawsuit was filed charging China Expert Technology, Inc. with violations of the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that the company knowingly issued materially false financial statements and other misleading statements concerning its business. During the Class Period, CXTI issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted to state material facts that rendered their affirmative statements misleading as they related to the Company’s financial performance, business prospects, and financial condition. As a result of these materially false and misleading statements, the price of the Company’s securities was artificially inflated to a Class Period high of over $8.00 per share. As the truth of the Company’s materially false and misleading statements entered the market, the Company’s stock plummeted to pennies and was even halted by the SEC.

On March 17, 2008, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein signed the plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal, dismissing the individual defendants named in the complaint. On March 25, 2008, certain plaintiffs were appointed lead plaintiffs. The Order further approved the Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead counsel. On March 27, 2009, an Amended Complaint was filed. In April and June 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, and on September 30, 2009, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted with prejudice the motion of Defendant BDO Seidman, LLP. The motion of defendant PKF New York, Certified Public Accountants, a Professional Corporation, was granted without prejudice. On October 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. On December 14, 2009, the defendants filed several motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On April 16, 2010, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismiss the complaint without prejudice, giving leave for the plaintiffs to replead. On May 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint. On July 27, 2010, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs again amended their complaint by filing a Fourth Amended Complaint on April 4, 2011. On May 6, 2011, the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss.

According to a press release dated July 20, 2011, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in New York had previously dismissed the suit three times, saying the shareholders' claims were inadequate. But Hellerstein reversed course and on Tuesday said he would allow the lawsuit against China Expert's outside auditors, PKF Hong Kong, PKF New York and BDO McCabe Lo Ltd, to proceed. BDO McCabe is the predecessor firm to BDO Limited, the Hong Kong member of the vast accounting network of BDO International. 'Enough has been alleged to make out a plausible claim for relief,' Hellerstein declared in a handwritten order. He did not rule on the merits of the case but instead simply allowed shareholders' claims to proceed to the next phase. The ruling was filed on Tuesday. Hellerstein's ruling allowing investors to pursue China Expert's auditors is one of the first of its kind in a slew of class-action lawsuits against China-based companies. It offers a potentially lucrative channel for shareholders who set their sights on deep-pocketed defendants as they grapple with potential roadblocks in pursuing China-based companies in U.S. courts.

The defendant PKF New York filed a motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint on August 26, 2011. The motion was denied on November 7, 2011.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 8742
Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	China Expert Technology, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	CXTI
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://tech.chinaexpertnet.com/

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Carlos Munoz, et al. v. China Expert Technology, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 07-CV-10531
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein
DATE FILED: 11/21/2007	SOURCE: Notice of Filing
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/14/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/01/2007
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York) 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, New York, NY, 10118 (voice) 212.686.1060, (fax) 212.202.3827, lrosen@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. (New York, Former Office) 232 Madison Avenue, Suite 906, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.686.1060, (fax) 212.202.3827, info@rosenlegal.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/21/2007
Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal, Wihtout Prejudice, As To Defendants Zhu Xiaoxin; Huang Tao; And Fu Wan Chung, A/K/A Simon Fu
Type: Notice		Date on the document: 3/17/2008
Order Appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Counsel
Type: Order Appointing LP/LC		Date on the document: 3/25/2008

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Carlos Munoz, et al. v. China Expert Technology, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 07-CV-10531
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 04/04/2011	SOURCE: Docket
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/31/2006	CLASS PERIOD END: 10/01/2007
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Fourth Amended
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York) 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, New York, NY, 10118 (voice) 212.686.1060, (fax) 212.202.3827, lrosen@rosenlegal.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 03/27/2009
Summary Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 09/30/2009
Summary Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 04/16/2010
Third Amended Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 05/28/2010
Fourth Amended Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 04/04/2011
Defendants Pio Hong Kong And BDO Limited's Notice Of Motion And Joint Motion To Dismiss The Fourth Amended Complaint
Type: Motion		Date on the document: 05/06/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 01/04/2012

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

�