JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd. - Securities Class Action

Company and Case Information

IMPORTANT INFORMATION | INDEX OF FILINGS | SEARCH

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

JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd. Summary: According to a press release dated December 03, 2008, the complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the Company’s financial condition and operating results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that JA Solar purchased from a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Inc.(“Lehman Brothers”) a three month, $100 million note (the “Lehman note”) on or about July 9, 2008. At the time of this purchase, Lehman Brothers, which guaranteed the Lehman note, was under severe financial distress. According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose: (i) that JA Solar had made a material, highly speculative investment in a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers, an entity that was then undergoing a credit crisis and under significant financial distress; (ii) that the value of JA Solar’s investment in the Lehman note had diminished considerably; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements concerning JA Solar’s financial performance, outlook and earnings guidance were materially false and misleading and without reasonable basis.

Ultimately, at the end of the Class Period, JA Solar wrote off its $100 million investment in the Lehman note. After JA Solar fully disclosed and recorded an impairment in the value of its investment in the Lehman note, on November 12, 2008, JA Solar’s stock closed at $2.38 per share, a price that represented a decline of more than 87% from the high during the three month Class Period.

On April 17, 2009, an order for consolidation of cases Nos. 08 Civ. 10475 and 08 Civ. 11366 were consolidated. The order also granted Bill Chen's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of lead plaintiff's selection of counsel.

On June 01, 2009, an amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff in this action.

On August 21, 2009, a second amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff in this action.

On May 17, 2010, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied and the Clerk was directed to close Docket No. 47.

On January 28, 2011, a Settlement Agreement was submitted to the Court pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The agreement embodies a settlement made and entered into by the Settling Parties.

On February 18, 2011, an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice of the hearing was issued by the Court.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3674
Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	JASO
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.jasolar.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Lee R. Ellenburg III, et al. v. JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-10475
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 12/03/2008	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/12/2008	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/12/2008
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/ Dyer & Berens LLP (former) 682 Grant Street, Denver, CO, 80203-3507 (voice) 303.861.1764, (fax) 303.861.1764, contact@dyerberens.com Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (former Atlanta) 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107, Atlanta, GA, 30338 (voice) 770.392.0090, (fax) 770.392.0090, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 12/03/2008
Opinion And Order
Type: Order of Consolidation		Date on the document: 04/17/2009
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/19/2009

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Lee R. Ellenburg III, et al. v. JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-10475
JUDGE NAME: Hon. John G. Koeltl
DATE FILED: 06/01/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/12/2008	CLASS PERIOD END: 11/12/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended and Consolidated
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/ _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 06/01/2009
Second Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/21/2009
Memorandum Opinion And Order
Type: Order		Date on the document: 05/17/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 05/17/2010
Settlement Agreement
Type: Settlement		Date on the document: 01/28/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/07/2011
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement And Providing For Notice
Type: Order		Date on the document: 02/18/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Lei Zhang, et al. v. JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd., et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 12/31/2008

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

�