Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/23/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: October 21, 2004

Star Gas Partners, L.P. ("Star Gas" or "Company") provides energy to homes, primarily heating oil, propane and air conditioning products.

The original Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants caused Star Gas's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading statements. As a result of this inflation, Star Gas was able to complete a secondary public offering of 1.3 million common units and two note offerings totaling $65 million, raising net proceeds of $95 million during the Class Period. The true facts, which were known by each of the Defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) that the Company was experiencing massive delays in the centralization of its dispatch system and causing its customers to flee to competitors; (b) that the Company's Petro heating oil division's business process improvement program was faltering and not generating the benefits claimed by Defendants; (c) that contrary to Defendants' earlier indications, the Company was not able to increase or even maintain profit margins in its heating oil segment; (d) that the Company's second quarter 2004 claimed profit margins were an aberration and not indicative of the Company's success or ability to pass on the heating oil price increase because the Company had earlier acquired heating oil (sold in the second quarter) at a much lower basis; and (e) that as a result, Defendants were facing imminent bankruptcy and would no longer be able to service the Company's debt, all of which would halt the Company's ability to maintain the Company's credit rating and/or obtain future financing.

The Complaint further alleges that on October 18, 2004, TheStreet.com issued an article, entitled "Stocks In Motion: Star Gas," which stated: "Earnings at Star Gas' heating oil unit are expected to decline substantially, the company said, which will not permit it to meet the borrowing conditions under its working capital line. Star is currently in talks with lenders to modify conditions and other terms that would allow its business unit to operate through the winter. If lenders do not agree, however, to offer modified terms, Star said it could be forced to seek alternative financing on 'extremely disadvantageous' terms or even be forced to seek bankruptcy protection." On this news, Star Gas's stock dropped to $4.32 per share from a closing price of $21.60 on the previous trading day.

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005, on or about October 21, 2004, a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of a purported class of unitholders was filed against the Partnership and various subsidiaries and officers and directors in the United States District Court of the District of Connecticut entitled Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al, No. 3:04-cv-01766-IBA, et al. Subsequently, 16 additional class action Complaints, alleging the same or substantially similar claims, were filed in the same district court. The class actions have been consolidated into one action entitled In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, No 3:04cv1766 (JBA).

On February 23, 2005, the Court consolidated cases. On April 8, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended Complaint on June 20, 2005. Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the consolidated amended Complaint on September 23. On August 21, 2006, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and on August 23, the Court entered Judgment in favor of the Defendants.

On September 7, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to Alter Judgment to Grant Leave to Amend the Complaint and Other Relief. On March 23, 2007, the Court entered a ruling denying the motion to alter judgment.

On April 20, 2007, a Notice of Appeal was filed as to the Order and Judgment in favor of the Defendants as well as the Order denying the Motion to Alter Judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment on
August 20, 2009.

Protected Content


Please Log In or Sign Up for a free account to access restricted features of the Clearinghouse website, including the Advanced Search form and the full case pages.

When you sign up, you will have the option to save your search queries performed on the Advanced Search form.