Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/06/2000 (Other)

Filing Date: November 24, 1999

According to the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2000, on July 11, 2000, the Court dismissed without prejudice the class action complaint. The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim in light of the heightened pleading standards applicable to the allegations made in the complaint. Under the Court's order, the plaintiff was granted an opportunity to amend his complaint at any time within 30 days of the Court's order to attempt to state a cognizable claim. The parties subsequently entered into a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the action, which was entered by the court on September 5, 2000.

The Complaint charges Eco Soil and several of its top officers with violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United States. The Complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the Company's revenue and operations. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company presented itself as one whose business was primarily focused on the golf course industry and completely failed to disclose its reliance on and risks involved with its Mexican agricultural operations. Upon the announcement that it anticipated a $3 million shortfall in revenue due to problems in the Mexican tomato industry, the Company's stock price dropped approximately 41% on extraordinarily heavy trading volume.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Chemical Manufacturing
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ESSI
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. California
DOCKET #: 99-CV-2504
JUDGE: Hon. John A. Houston
DATE FILED: 11/24/1999
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/13/1999
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/03/1999
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
    World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., MD 21202
    410.332.0030 · pivenlaw@erols.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
No Document Title Filing Date