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


NovaGold Resources, Inc.
Summary: According to a press release dated August 7, 2008, the Complaint charges NovaGold and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NovaGold is engaged in the business of exploration and development of mineral properties. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants falsely portrayed NovaGold as a rapidly growing company on the verge of moving from a mid-tier exploration and development company to a mid-tier gold and copper production company by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding the costs, progress and viability of its multi-billion dollar Galore Creek project.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Class Period begins on October 25, 2006, when NovaGold issued a press release touting the results of a feasibility study performed by Hatch Ltd. ("Hatch") that purportedly "confirmed" the economic viability of the Galore Creek project. According to a statement made by the Company's President and CEO, Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse ("Nieuwenhuyse"), in the October 25, 2006 press release, "the Feasibility Study confirms that Galore Creek is one of the world's largest undeveloped copper-gold-silver projects with one of the lowest cash costs in the industry ...." The Feasibility Study estimated the capital costs for the Galore Creek project to be Cdn $2.2 billion. The Hatch Feasibility Study enabled the Company to successfully fend off a hostile takeover bid by mining giant Barrick Gold by maintaining the average closing price of the Company's shares above Barrick Gold's $16 per share tender offer. In fact, when fending off Barrick Gold's takeover bid Nieuwenhuyse assured shareholders "that at US$16, NovaGold shares are better than money in the bank." The Hatch Feasibility Study also allowed the Company to raise hundreds of millions of dollars in an April 2007 secondary stock offering, thus providing a strong motive for the Defendants to misrepresent the Hatch Feasibility Study as a bankable study. Throughout the Class Period, the Company regularly and systematically assured the investing public that the construction of the Galore Creek project was on schedule and on budget.

On November 26, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it would suspend activities at Galore Creek based on the results of an updated feasibility study, which estimated the capital costs for the Galore Creek project to be Cdn $5 billion -- approximately 127 percent greater than Hatch had estimated in October 2006. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $10.76 per share, or more than 53 percent, to close on November 26, 2007 at $9.48 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 1040
Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Gold & Silver


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: NovaGold Resources, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: NG
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.novagold.net

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Rudolph T. Textor, et al. v. NovaGold Resources, Inc., et al.
 COURT: S.D. New York  DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-07041
 JUDGE NAME: Hon. Denise L. Cote
 DATE FILED: 8/7/2008  SOURCE: 
 CLASS PERIOD START: 10/25/2006  CLASS PERIOD END: 11/23/2007
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Brodsky & Smith, LLC (New York)
      240 Mineola Boulevard, Mineola, NY, 11501
       (voice) 516.741.4977, (fax) 516.741.0626, clients@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 for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws - Jury Trial Demanded
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 8/7/2008
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 8/8/2008

     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