CNinsure 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

CNinsure Inc. Summary: According to a press release dated October 17, 2011, he complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the Company was materially overstating its net income by understating the costs associated with the Company’s scorecard system; (b) that the Company failed to account for incentives provided to the Company’s agents as costs since those incentives were reasonably likely to be tendered at a future date; and (c) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.

On December 2, 2010, an analyst report claiming that the Company may have understated commission expenses and overstated net income as a result of the way the Company incentivizes its agents, which the report said is “no different from an equity-based compensation plan.” In reaction to the report, the price of the Company’s ADSs fell $5.36 per ADS over the next two trading days, or 24%, to close at $16.79 per ADS, on December 3, 2010.

On March 1, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter and year end of 2010, the period ended December 31, 2010. For the quarter, the Company reported total net revenues of RMB449.0 million (US$68.0 million), net income attributable to the Company’s shareholders of RMB126.5 million (US$19.2 million) and basic and diluted net income per ADS of RMB2.514 (US$0.381) and RMB2.447 (US$0.371), respectively. Moreover, the Company reported an increase in total operating costs and expenses of 29.0% and an increase in share-based compensation expenses of 298.9% for the same quarter in 2009. In reaction to the increases in total operating costs and expenses and share-based compensation expenses, the price of the Company’s ADSs fell $1.96 per ADS, or 11%, to close at $15.92 per ADS, on March 2, 2011.

On May 16, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing that it received a preliminary non-binding proposal letter from a company controlled by certain a certian individual Defendant and Companies affiliated with him, to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company for $19.00 per ADS. In response to this announcement, the price of the ADSs rose $4.16 per ADS, or 32%, to close at $17.32 per ADS.

Then, on September 15, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing that the Special Committee of its Board of Directors received a notice from the individual companies affiliated with him that “they have unanimously determined to withdraw the non-binding going private proposal dated May 14, 2011.”

In reaction the announcement of the withdrawal of the going private proposal, the price of the Company’s ADSs fell $1.64 per ADS, or 15%, to close at $9.03 per ADS. The price of the Company’s ADSs continued to fall during the next two trading days as the market continued to digest the Company’s announcement, closing at $7.31 per ADS on September 19, 2011.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 6411
Sector: Financial
Industry: Insurance (Miscellaneous)

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	CNinsure Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	CISG
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.cninsure.net

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Pieter Van Dongen, et al. v. CNinsure Inc., et al.

COURT: S.D. New York	DOCKET NUMBER: 11-CV-07320
JUDGE NAME: Hon.Victor Marrero
DATE FILED: 10/17/2011	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/02/2010	CLASS PERIOD END: 09/14/2011
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Dyer & Berens LLP 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300, Denver, CO, 80203 (voice) 303.861.1764, (fax) 303.861.1764, Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC (Atlanta) 200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA, 30338 (voice) 770.392.0090, (fax) 770.392.0090, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747 (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, _____________________________________________ TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS: 3

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 10/17/2011
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 10/17/2011

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

�