Company and Case Information

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


Agria Corporation
Summary: According to a press release dated April 11, 2008, the Complaint charges Agria Corporation and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Agria engages in the research and development, production, and sale of upstream agricultural products in the People's Republic of China.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company had failed to secure enforceable employment agreements with its Chief Operating Officer ("COO") and other key executives prior to its IPO; (2) that the Company was in active negotiations with its COO and other key executives to provide multi-million dollar compensation packages in order to secure their future services (which were key to the Company's future success); (3) that these dramatically increased compensation expenses would materially impact the Company's financial results going forward, specifically by increasing its general and administrative expenses, and decreasing its operating profit and margins; (4) that, as a result of the above, the Company's financial results following its IPO would in no way be analogous to the financial statements provided in its Registration Statement; (5) that the failure of the Company to successfully negotiate enforceable employment agreements with its COO and other key executives would significantly affect its ability to execute its stated operating strategies due to the executives' critical importance to the Company; (6) that various accounting and payment issues, which existed at the time of the IPO, would subsequently prohibit the Company's auditors from completing its audit of the Company's financial statements; (7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's Registration Statement was false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 6, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO. In connection with its IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement with the SEC. The IPO was a financial success for the Company and its selling shareholder, Brothers Capital Limited, as they raised over $282 million by selling 17,150,000 of the Company's securities to investors at a price of $16.50 per share.

Then on April 7, 2008, after the close of the market, Agria shocked investors when it announced that its auditors were unable to begin their audit of the Company's financial statements for 2007 due to various accounting and payment issues. The Company warned that "given the substantial delay in the commencement of the audit process, there is a risk that the Company may not be able to file its Annual Report" on time, and retracted its previously provided guidance for the fourth quarter of 2007, and first quarter and full year of 2008. The Company also announced that its COO had resigned. Further, the Company disclosed for the first time that its Chief Executive Officer was actively involved in protracted compensation negotiations with the COO and other key executives. These executives stood to receive $18 million in cash and transfer of Company shares (which represented 22% of the Company) so as to "provide incentive for their continuing service and align their interests with those of the shareholders." As the Company noted, payment of cash and/or shares to the COO and other executives "as compensation and incentive for their past and continuing services in connection with the proposed transaction will likely result in material compensation charges to the Company in the period in which the payment is made."

Upon the release of this news, shares of the Company's securities declined $3.34 per share, or almost 38 percent, to close on April 8, 2008 at $5.46 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. This closing price on April 8, 2008 represented a cumulative loss of $11.04, or 66.9 percent, of the value of the Company's shares at the time of its IPO just months prior.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 0100
Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Food Processing


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Agria Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: GRO
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.agriacorp.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Charles Lintz, et al. v. Agria Corporation, et al.
 COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-03536
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. William H. Pauley, III
 DATE FILED: 4/11/2008  SOURCE: Notice of Filing
 CLASS PERIOD START: 11/6/2007  CLASS PERIOD END: 11/6/2007
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Brodsky & Smith, LLC
      11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004
       (voice) 610.668.7987., (fax) 610.660.0450, esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
  • Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
       280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA, 19087
       (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbtklaw.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: 4/11/2008
    US District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 4/11/2008

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Class Action Complaint For Violation Of The Federal Securities Laws Vs. Demand For Jury Trial
    Case Name and/or Number: Joshua R. LeBlanc, et al. v. Agria Corporation, et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 4/24/2008

    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