![]() |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| American Oriental Bioengineering Inc Summary: According to the law firm press release, on March 16, 2012 American Oriental announced that Ernst & Young Hua Ming (“E&Y”) informed the Company’s audit committee of certain inconsistencies noted during the course of E&Y’s audit of the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal year 2011. That same day, trading in American Oriental shares were halted. On May 29, 2012 the Company’s stock was delisted from the NYSE and began trading over the counter and lost 60% of its value that day. On June 15, 2012 the Company announced that E&Y had withdrawn it's audit opinions for the Company’s financial statements the fiscal years 2009 and 2010. E&Y also determined that it could no longer rely on management's representation in connection with (a) its audits of the financial statements for years ended December 2009 and 2010, (b) its audit of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009 and 2010, and (c) its reviews of the Company’s unaudited interim financial statements for the quarters from September 30, 2009 through September 30, 2010. In the same announcement, the Company stated it had dismissed E&Y as its auditor. On October 16, 2012, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases, appointing lead plaintiff, and approving the selection of lead counsel. On November 19, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. On March 25, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. On April 15, lead plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint. INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION: SIC Code: 2834 Sector: Healthcare Industry: Biotechnology & Drugs
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||