Company and Case Information

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


L&L Energy, Inc.
Summary: According to the complaint filed on August 26, 2011, the defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with allegedly material false and misleading financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The plaintiffs state that statements contained in the Company’s 10-K filings dating back to 2009 contained materially false information. On July 29, 2011, the Company issued an amendment to its 2010 10-K along with a statement acknowledging certain deficiencies in the process in which it produced it consolidated financials and that previous 10-K statements were no longer reliable.

This adverse news caused the Company’s stock to fall from $.79/share, or 15.9% on August 1, 2011. On August 2, 2011, an independent financial research firm, published a report alleging that the revenues and net incomes claimed by the Company’s SEC filings for the calendar year ended 2009 are inaccurate because financial statements filed the PRC authorities show that the Company’s sales to be $65 million less, and net profits to be $19 million less, when compared to the Company’s SEC filings. The report concludes that the Company’s assets are only 25% of the value of that the Company claims in its SEC filings, and that the Company’s net sales are four times smaller than what it claims in its SEC filings. The report also raised additional red flags of fraud indicating that the Company’s periodic reports filed with the SEC during the class period are not accurate.

As a result of this information, the Company’s stock fell over $.84 a share, or 17.3 from August 2 through August 4, 2011.

On December 15, 2011, the Court issued an order appointing Lead Plaintiff and approving of Lead Counsel in addition to consolidating several cases under the new caption In re L&L, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On February 8, 2012, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint for violations of the Federal securities laws.

On December 3, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss and thus dismissing the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to amend. On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff filed their Third Amended Class Action Complaint.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 1220
Sector: Energy
Industry: Coal


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: L&L Energy, Inc.
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: LLEN
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.lnlinternational.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Jeff Mills, et al. v. L&L Energy, Inc. , et al.
 COURT: W.D. Washington  DOCKET NUMBER: 11-CV-01423
 JUDGE NAME: Hon.Robert S. Lasnik
 DATE FILED: 08/26/2011  SOURCE: 
 CLASS PERIOD START: 08/13/2009  CLASS PERIOD END: 08/02/2011
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Smith & Lowney, PLLC
      2317 East John St., Seattle, WA, 98112
       (voice) 206.860.2883, (fax) 206.860.4187, info@smithandlowney.com
  • The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY, 10016
       (voice) (212) 686-1060, (fax) (212) 202-3827,
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  2

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Complaint Class Action Jury Trial Demanded
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 08/26/2011
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 08/26/2011
    Order Appointing Gregg Irvin As Lead Plaintiff, Rosen Law Firm, P.A., As Lead Counsel, And Smith & Lowney, Pllc, As Liaison Counsel
    Type: Order Appointing LP/LC Date on the document: 12/15/2011
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Other Date on the document: 12/16/2011

    REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    Jeff Mills , et al. v. ,L&L Energy, Inc. et al.
     COURT: W.D. Washington  DOCKET NUMBER: 11-CV-01423
     JUDGE NAME: 
     DATE FILED: 02/08/2012  SOURCE: 
     CLASS PERIOD START: 08/13/2009  CLASS PERIOD END: 08/02/2011
     TYPE OF COMPLAINT: First Amended
     PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  • Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101
       (voice) 619.231.1058, (fax) 619.231.7423,
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  1

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT
    Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 02/08/2012
    U.S. District Court Civil Docket
    Type: Docket Date on the document: 02/08/2012
    Second Amended Class Action Complaint For Violations Of The Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Other Date on the document: 03/02/2012
    Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
    Type: Order Date on the document: 12/03/2012
    Third Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 02/04/2013

     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