Hecla Mining Company - 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

Hecla Mining Company Summary: According to a press release dated February 1, 2012, the 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 financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose operational problems at the Company’s Lucky Friday silver mine. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Hecla’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $11.34 per share on December 29, 2010.

Due to a series of accidents at the Lucky Friday mine during 2011, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) engaged in a close inspection of the mine. In early December, MSHA issued an accident report accusing Hecla of safety failures that led to the death of a miner in April 2011. Thereafter, on January 5, 2012, MSHA issued a closure order for the Lucky Friday mine for the removal of built-up material in the shaft that had been leaking from a pipe into the shaft for a number of years. On January 11, 2012, the Company announced that the Lucky Friday mine would be closed for up to a year based upon MSHA’s order. As a result of the closure, the Company reduced its estimated silver production for 2012 from more than 9 million ounces to around 7 million ounces. On this news, the Company’s stock dropped $1.23 per share, to close at $4.61 per share on January 11, 2012, a one-day decline of 21%.

According to the complaint, during the Class period, defendants knew but concealed from the investing public the following adverse facts: (a) the Company was not in compliance with safety regulations at its Lucky Friday mine; (b) the Company had allowed sand and concrete material to improperly build up in the mine shaft over a period of years, creating a safety hazard; (c) following the December closure, the Company would be unable to reestablish mining operations at the Lucky Friday mine by February 2012, as the Company had previously represented; (d) the Company improperly accounted for its contingent liabilities in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (e) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s operations and its expected silver production.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 1400
Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Gold & Silver

COMPANY/ISSUER NAME:	Hecla Mining Company
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER:	HL
COMPANY WEBSITE:	http://www.hecla-mining.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE

Bricklayers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan, et al. v. Hecla Mining Company, et al.

COURT: D. Idaho	DOCKET NUMBER: 12-CV-00042
JUDGE NAME: Hon.B. Lynn Winmill
DATE FILED: 02/01/2012	SOURCE:
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/26/2010	CLASS PERIOD END: 01/11/2012
TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Complaint (Unamended and Unconsolidated)
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Gordon Law Offices 623 West Hays, Boise, ID, 83702 (voice) 208.345.7100, (fax) 208.345.7100, 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: 2

DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
Type: Complaint		Date on the document: 02/01/2012
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Type: Docket		Date on the document: 02/02/2012

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

�