According to a press release dated July 29, 2010, the complaint charges Monsanto and certain of its officers and executives with violations of the Exchange Act. Monsanto is a provider of agricultural products for farmers including seeds, biotechnology trait products, and herbicides, most notably Roundup®.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) that demand for the Company’s herbicide products was substantially declining as competition from Chinese producers of generic
glyphosate products was causing a collapse in the prices of glyphosate
products; (ii) that the Company would be unable to maintain herbicide prices
as defendants knew that they had to cut prices significantly to be able to
compete with the avalanche of generic herbicide products that were entering
the market; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive
statements about the Company, its earnings, prospects and financial condition
were lacking in a reasonable basis and materially misleading.
On May 27, 2010, the Company announced that it was “dramatically”
repositioning its Roundup® business, lowering its full-year 2010 guidance to
$2.40 to $2.60 a share from $3.10 to $3.30 a share, and lowering its free cash
flow guidance. The Company also announced that its guidance for Roundup® and
other glyphosate-based products was now $50 to $200 million, down from $600
million on April 7, 2010. On this news, the Company’s stock price fell from a
price of $52.66 prior to the announcement to close at $50.27 on extremely
On November 1, 2010, the motion to appoint the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as lead counsel was approved. All other pending motions were denied by the Honorable Catherine D. Perry. On January 31, 2011, the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The defendants responded by filing a motion to dismiss on April 1, 2011.
On August 1, 2012, the Court issued an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissing the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice.