China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated February 04, 2011, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendant failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendant’s statements were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and overstated the financial condition of the Company.
On February 3, 2011, Muddy Waters Research initiated coverage on China MediaExpress with a strong sell rating on China MediaExpress stock. In its report, Muddy Waters questioned the accuracy of many of the Company’s statements and the quality of the Company’s earnings.
In response to the report, the price of China MediaExpress securities declined substantially, falling from $16.61 per share to $11.09 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.
On April 4, 2011, the Court ordered that two cases be consolidated under the lower number case, 11 Civ. 0804.
On April 15, 2011, Judge Victor Marrero directed the Clerk of Court to consolidate the three cases under a single consolidated action, 11 Civ. 0804.
According to the Order signed by Judge Victor Marrero on June 7, 2011, class members, Irrevocable Trust FBO Lansing Davis under agreement dated 10/1/1979 and the Davis Partnership LP (collectively the "Davis Entities"), are appointed to serve as Lead Plaintiffs. Class members, John and Jennifer Houghton, Ethan Lamar Pierce and Susan Shaffer (collectively the "CME Investor Group) are appointed as additional interim representative plaintiffs. The law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is appointed Lead Counsel for the Davis Entities in the action. The law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is appointed interim co-counsel for the putative class in the action.
On October 25, 2011, lead plaintiffs filed an Amended and Consolidated Complaint, adding claims and individual defendants to the action.
On February 28, 2013, the Court issued an Order ruling on a number of Motions to Dismiss. The Court granted the Motions of certain defendants and denied the motions of others.
SIC Code: 7310
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