Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/30/2001 (Other)

Filing Date: December 09, 1999

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002, the Company filed Motions to Dismiss in both the shareholder derivative suit and the class action. The federal district court granted the Company's Motions on both actions. No appeal was filed in the shareholder derivative suit, but the class action case was appealed to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court's dismissal in May 2002.

The original complaint alleges that during the class period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that BHI's Intek unit, which represented over 20% of BHI's business, had materially overstated its earnings due to violations of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principals. This overstatement of Intek's
earnings enabled BHI to report improperly inflated earnings on a consolidated
basis during the class period. In turn, plaintiff alleges that the price of BHI common stock was artificially inflated during the class period. When BHI
announced that it would restate financial results for historical periods because of the accounting violations at Intek, the price of BHI common stock
declined precipitously. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for herself and
all persons who purchased the common stock during the class period at prices inflated by defendants' fraudulent scheme.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil Well Services & Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: BHI
Company Market: New York SE
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. Texas
DOCKET #: 99-CV-04281
JUDGE: Hon. Vanessa D. Gilmore
DATE FILED: 12/09/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/03/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/08/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  2. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York)
    270 Madison Avenue, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.545.4600 212.686.0114 · newyork@whafh.com
  3. Wolin, Ridley & Miller LLP

    ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 99-CV-04281
JUDGE: Hon. Vanessa D. Gilmore
DATE FILED: 06/23/2000
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/03/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 12/08/1999
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. Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP
    One Liberty Square, Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP, MA 02109
    617.542.8300 ·
  3. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York)
    10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP (New York), NY 10016
    800.217.1522 · info@bernlieb.com
  4. Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
    299 Park Avenue, 14th Floor, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, NY 10171
    212.894.7200 212.894.7272 · info@entwistle-law.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date