Terex Corporation - 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

Terex Corporation Summary: According to a press release dated December 21, 2009, the complaint charges Terex and certain of its officers and executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Terex operates as a diversified global manufacturer. The Company manufactures a range of equipment for use in various industries, including the construction, infrastructure, quarrying, surface mining, shipping, transportation, refining, and utility industries.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the Company failed to properly and timely account for impaired assets in its “Construction” and “Roadbuilding, Utility Products and Other” segments; (ii) that the Company was experiencing declining demand for its products in its Construction, Materials Processing and Aerial Work Platforms segments; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.

On September 4, 2008, Terex announced that it was updating its “2008 full year guidance and providing quarterly guidance due to changing market conditions.” In response to these statements which revealed various adverse factors negatively impacting Terex’s business, the price of Terex stock fell $9.30 per share, or 20%, to close at $38.02 per share.

On September 13, 2010, a joint motion of the Sheet Metal Workers Pension Fund and the Ironworkers Pension Fund for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted along with the appointment of lead counsel.

On November 18, 2010, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of Securities Laws was filed by the lead plaintiff against the defendants.

On December 03, 2010, a Corrected Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Securities Laws was filed by the lead plaintiff against the defendants.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3537
Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Misc. Capital Goods

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Terex Corporation
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	TEX
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.terex.com/main.php

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund, et al. v. Terex Corporation, et al.

COURT: D. Connecticut	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-02083
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Robert N. Chatigny
DATE FILED: 12/21/2009	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/20/2008	CLASS PERIOD END: 09/04/2008
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY) 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631-367-7100, (fax) 631-367-1173, info@csgrr.com/ Diserio Martin O'Connor & Castiglioni LLP 1 Atlantic Street, Stamford, CT, 06901 (voice) 203.358.0800, (fax) 203.348.2321, Sugarman & Susskind 100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300, Coral Gables, FL, 33134 (voice) 305/529-2801, (fax) 305/447-8115, _____________________________________________ 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: 12/21/2009
Reply Memorandum Of Law in Further Support Of Sheet metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund And Ironworkers St. Louis District Council Pension Fund's Motion For Appointment As Lead Plaintiffs And For Approval Of Their Selection Of Lead And Liaison Counsel, And In Response To The Supplemental Brief Of The Public Retirement Systems
Type: Memorandum		Date on the document: 09/09/2010

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

Sheet Metal Workers Local Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, et al. v. Terex Corporation, et al.

COURT: D. Connecticut	DOCKET NUMBER: 09-CV-02083
JUDGE NAME:
DATE FILED: 09/13/2010	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/20/2008	CLASS PERIOD END: 02/11/2009
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut) P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT, 06415 (voice) 860.537.5537, (fax) 860.537.4432, scottlaw@scott-scott.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/17/2010
Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 11/18/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 11/18/2010
Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Securities Laws (Corrected)
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 12/03/2010
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Other		Date on the document: 05/05/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
Case Name and/or Number: Michael Glassman, et al. v. Terex Corporation, et al.
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 01/15/2010

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

�