![]() |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Summary: On August 26, 2008, a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was filed and the case is closed. According to a law firm press release, the class action filed against the company alleges that the Prospectus for the secondary offering misrepresented the financial strength of SemGroup's Parent (SemGroup, L.P.) and failed to disclose that the Parent had engaged in risky hedging strategies that presented a material risk of default and bankruptcy. Inasmuch as SemGroup's business operations were heavily dependent on its Parent, the true facts concerning the Parent's financial condition were material to a reasonable investor's decision to purchase units on the secondary offering. Those true facts were first disclosed to investors on Thursday, July 17, 2008, when it was revealed that because of its hedging strategies the Parent was at risk of filing for bankruptcy. The Parent and affiliated companies subsequently filed for bankruptcy on Monday, July 21, 2008. As a result of the July 17, 2008 disclosures and subsequent bankruptcy filing, SemGroup's units, which closed on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at $22.80 per unit, plummeted to close on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at $8.00 per unit. Documents filed on behalf of the Parent in Bankruptcy Court revealed that SemGroup began experiencing financial distress in 2007 and early 2008, prior to the secondary offering. The Prospectus failed to disclose that the Parent was suffering from liquidity problems, or that it was engaged in highly risky crude oil hedge transactions that affected its ability to continue as a going concern. INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION: SIC Code: 4160 Sector: Basic Materials Industry: Non-Metallic Mining
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||