China Valves Technology, Inc. - 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

China Valves Technology, Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated February 05, 2011, the Complaint asserts violations of the Securities Exchange Act against China Valves and its officers and directors for misrepresenting the nature, circumstances, and related party nature of the Company’s acquisitions of Able Delight (Changsha) Valve Co. and Shanghai Pudong Hanwei Valve Co., Ltd. The Complaint asserts that defendants concealed that both acquisitions involved payments to entities or persons that were related to management in violation of generally accepted accounting principles and SEC rules. The Complaint also alleges that Defendants materially overstated the financial condition and business prospects of the acquired companies. When the market learned of this adverse information, the price of China Valves stock dropped damaging investors.

On June 29, 2011, the Court issued an order consolidating three separate actions, including the following docket numbers: 11 Civ. 0796 (LAK), 11 Civ. 1116 (LAK), 11 Civ. 1564 (LAK). Moreover, the Court ordered that Bristol Investment Fund, Ltd. serve as lead plaintiff over the Mallard Group because Bristol possesses the largest financial interest in the action. The Court also approved Federman & Sherwood and The Ball Law Firm LLP asl lead counsel.

On August 29, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 3490
Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Misc. Fabricated Products

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	China Valves Technology, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	CVVT
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.cvalve.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Donald Foster, et al. v. China Valves Technology, Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 11-CV-00796
JUDGE NAME: Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan
DATE FILED: 02/04/2011	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/12/2010	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/13/2011
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C. (New York, Former Office) 232 Madison Avenue, Suite 906, New York, NY, 10016 (voice) 212.686.1060, (fax) 212.202.3827, info@rosenlegal.com _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 1

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint - Demand for Jury Trial
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/04/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/04/2011
Order
Type: Order of Consolidation		Date on the document: 06/29/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 06/29/2011

REFERENCE COMPLAINT

In re China Valves Technology Securities Litigation

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 11-CV-00796
JUDGE NAME: Hon.Lewis A. Kaplan
DATE FILED: 08/29/2011	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/01/2009	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/13/2011
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Consolidated
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City) 10205 N. Pennsylvania, Oklahoma City, OK, 73120 (voice) 405.235.1560, (fax) 405.235.1560, The Ball Law Firm LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA, (voice) 310-446-6148, (fax) , _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
Consolidated Class Action Complaint
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 08/29/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 08/29/2011

OTHER DOCUMENTS

Case Name and/or Number:
Type:		Date on the document:

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

�