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


TETRA Technologies Inc.
Summary: A motion to consolidate cases was filed by the City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System and TETRA Technologies Inc. The Judge granted the motion and cases were consolidate on May 8, 2008.

According to a press release dated March 28, 2008 the complaint charges TETRA and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company operates as an oil and gas services company worldwide. It manufactures integrated calcium chloride and brominated products, and supplies feedstocks to energy and other markets.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose the following adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (i) that the Company’s Well Abandonment and Decommissioning (“WA&D”) division was not performing according to internal expectations; (ii) that the Company failed to timely take a charge for insurance receivables which remain uncollected; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.

On August 3, 2007, the Company announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2007 and reduced its full year 2007 earnings guidance because of, among other things, poor profits at its WA&D services. Shares of TETRA stock fell 25% following this announcement. Then, on October 16, 2007, TETRA issued a press release announcing that it was withdrawing its previously estimated full year 2007 earnings guidance because of, among other things, the Company’s concern that it would have to take a charge to earnings for substantial uncollected insurance receivables. In response to this announcement, the price of TETRA common stock fell an additional $1.76 per share, or approximately 8%, to close at $19.86 per share, on heavy trading volume.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 2810
Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil Well Services & Equipment


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: TETRA Technologies Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: TTI
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.tetratec.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. TETRA Technologies Inc., et al.
 COURT: S.D. Texas  DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-00965
 JUDGE NAME: 
 DATE FILED: 3/27/2008  SOURCE: Notice of Filing
 CLASS PERIOD START: 1/3/2007  CLASS PERIOD END: 10/16/2007
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747
       (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/
  • Schwartz, Junell, Campbell & Oathout, LLP
      909 Fannin - Suite 2000, Houston, TX, 77010
       (voice) 713.752.0017, (fax) 713.752.0327,
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  2

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 03/27/2008
    Order
    Type: Order Date on the document: 5/8/2008
    US District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 5/8/2008

     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