Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/20/2005 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 15, 2004

According to the latest docket posted, on August 1, 2005, the Court entered the Order signed by U.S. District Judge Richard Owen preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice. A hearing was scheduled to be held before the Court on October 5, 2005. On October 20, 2005, the Court entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. The Court approved the settlement, and further approved the Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds and awarded Attorney's Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses.

In a press release dated June 8, 2005, Canadian Superior Energy Inc. of Calgary, Alberta, Canada announced that it and its insurers have reached an agreement with plaintiffs' legal counsel to settle all securities class action litigation and actions pending in the United States against the Company and certain of its officers and directors resulting from the drilling last year of the Canadian Superior El Paso "Mariner" I-85 exploration well drilled with El Paso Corporation (NYSE:EP) offshore Nova Scotia.

The US$3.2 million settlement, which is covered by the Company's insurance, has been reached with no admission of liability by any party and has been entered into to avoid costly and time consuming litigation by all parties. All parties have agreed to expeditiously seek the required United States court approval of the settlement.

The original complaint alleges that defendants, Canadian Superior and certain of its officers and directors, issued a number of materially false and misleading statements about its El Paso Mariner I-85 well offshore operations in Nova Scotia, Canada. These positive statements failed to disclose and indicate: (1) that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that the 'Mariner I-85 well' was virtually 'dry'; (2) that the actual costs of testing and drilling at the well were significantly exceeding the budgeted costs; (3) that a significant gas reservoir to support a commercial project did not exist; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's positive announcements concerning the 'Mariner I-85 well' were lacking in a reasonable basis when made, and (5), that the defendants' positive statements only served to artificially inflate the value of its stock.

The Company shocked the market with its March 11, 2004 announcement that it had halted operations at the El Paso Mariner I-85 well in the Atlantic Ocean off Nova Scotia, following 3-1/2 months of drilling. On this news, shares of Canadian Superior skidded 44.44%, or $1.44 per share, to close at $1.80 per share on March 11, 2004 on unusual high volume.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil & Gas Operations
Headquarters: Canada

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SNG
Company Market: American 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. New York
DOCKET #: 04-CV-2020
JUDGE: Hon. Richard Owen
DATE FILED: 03/15/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/17/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/11/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abbey Gardy, LLP (New York)
  2. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
  3. Geller Rudman, PLLC.
  4. Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
  5. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (New York, NY)
  6. Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
  7. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
  8. Schoengold & Sporn PC (New York)
  9. Scott & Scott LLC (Connecticut)
  10. Vianale & Vianale LLP (former Boca Raton)
  11. Wechsler Harwood LLP
  12. Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 04-CV-2020
JUDGE: Hon. Richard Owen
DATE FILED: 09/24/2004
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/17/2003
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/11/2004
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
    200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 · info@lerachlaw.com
  3. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
    3 Bala Plaza E, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, PA 19004
    610.667.7706 610.667.7056 · info@sbclasslaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date