 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Perini Corporation Summary: The original complaint charges Perini and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Perini and its subsidiaries offer general contracting, construction management, and design-build services to private clients and public agencies worldwide.
According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose: (a) that the developer of Perini's Las Vegas, Nevada projects, including the CityCenter Project, was experiencing financial problems because it failed to secure financing for the entire project and was dependent upon raising the remainder of the financing from the expected sale of residential units. However, the proceeds from the residential unit sales were based on unrealistic and aggressive prices at a time when the condo market in Las Vegas, Nevada was extremely weak; (b) that the company's Las Vegas projects were being delayed, and could possibly be halted; (c) that the developer was in risk of defaulting on its construction loan; (d) that the Company's future revenue and profit was dependent upon the Las Vegas projects since the projects consisted of approximately 20% of its backlog; and (e) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's ability to maintain its profit margins was in serious doubt.
Then, on January 17, 2008, the Company issued a press release announcing that Deutsche Bank "delivered a notice of loan default to the developer of the Cosmopolitan Resort and Casino project under construction in Las Vegas, Nevada." In response to this announcement, shares of the Company's common stock fell $10.05 per share, or 27%, to close at $27.65 per share, on heavy trading volume.
On December 10, 2008, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton granted the motion to consolidate two related actions, and approved the plaintiffs’ motion for lead plaintiff and approved selection of lead and liaison counsel. Plaintiffs Iron Workers District Council, Southern Ohio & Vicinity Pension Trust and Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund (collectively, the “Pension Fund Group”) are appointed lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP are approved to serve as Lead and Liaison Counsel, respectively. On February 9, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint. On April 17, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Consolidated Amended Complaint.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 1540
Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Construction Services
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Perini Corporation |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | PCR |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.perini.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| William Isham, et al. v. Perini Corporation, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 08/20/2008 | ||
| The Pension Fund Group's Motion For Consolidation Of Related Actions, Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of Selection Of Lead And Liaison Counsel | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 10/20/2008 | ||
| The Pension Fund Group's Motion For Consolidation Of Related Actions, Appointment As Lead Plaintiff And Approval Of Selection Of Lead And Liaison Counsel | |||
| Type: Order of Consolidation | Date on the document: 12/10/2008 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| William P. Isham, et al. v. Perini Corporation, et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| First Consolidated Amended Complaint | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 02/09/2009 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 10/07/2009 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Class Action Complaint | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: Marion Rollman, et al. v. Perini Corporation, et al. | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 09/11/2008 | ||
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