Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/24/2000 (Other)

Filing Date: August 13, 1998

According to the docket posted, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the March 2000 Judgment dismissing the amended complaint and an order denying the plaintiffs’ request to amend the amended complaint. On May 24, 2000, the Court entered the certified copy of the Mandate from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. According to the Mandate, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Defendants-Appellee agree and stipulate to the filing of this stipulation pursuant to the Federal Rule of Appellant Proceedure 42(b), to dismiss the appeal in the action.

In an article dated April 7, 2000, Federal judge in New York City has dismissed an uncertified securities class action complaint accusing an overseas corporation and its officers and directors of making materially false and misleading statements about their compliance with Chinese law. Rapaport et al. v. Asia Electronics Holding Co. Inc. et al., No. 98 Civ. 5785 (DNE) (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 7, 2000). The investors alleged in part that Asia Electronics shocked the market in July 1998, when it announced that its chairman was being questioned by the Disciplinary Committee of the Municipal Communist Party in Xianyang, China, and that the committee had detained its CEO for questioning. The amended complaint, which consolidated other litigation, alleged that Asia Electronics failed to disclose that its actions did not comply with Chinese law and that individual officers and directors were liable as controlling persons. The underwriters were also sued. Judge David N. Edelstein of the Southern District of New York granted the defense mission to dismiss, saying the complaint failed to allege adequate facts to support contentions that the IPO violated Chinese law and that the prospectus failed to disclose that violation. He criticized the investors for failing to attach either the full prospectus or a full Washington Post article about the company to the complaint, although they used excerpts of those two documents to support their Exchange Act claims. Examining those two documents on his own, he found that they contradict the allegations.

As summarized by the docket, on November 23, 1998, the Court entered Pre-trial Order No. 1, consolidating the actions and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On February 4, 1999, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, and on April 12, 1999, the defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On March 9, 2000, the Court entered the Order and Opinion #83580, signed by U.S. District Judge David N. Edelstein, granting the motions for an Order to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint without leave to replead. On March 15, 2000, the Court further entered Judgment and the case was closed.

The original complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO contained false and misleading statements that wrongfully portrayed the company's compliance with domestic and foreign law.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Electronic Instruments & Controls
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AEHZF
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 98-CV-5785
JUDGE: Hon. David N. Edelstein
DATE FILED: 08/13/1998
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/25/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/24/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco)
    595 Market Street, Suite 2500, Abbey Gardy & Squiteri LLP (San Francisco), CA 94105
    415.538.3725 ·
  2. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA)
    600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego, CA), CA 92101
    800.449.4900 · support@milberg.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 98-CV-5785
JUDGE: Hon. David N. Edelstein
DATE FILED: 02/04/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/25/1997
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/24/1998
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
    One Pennsylvania Plaza, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY), NY 10119-1065
    212.594.5300 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date