Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/18/2019 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: February 11, 2011

According to a press release dated February 12, 2011, the Complaint alleges China Agritech issued materially false and misleading financial statements. Particularly, the Complaint alleges that on or about February 3, 2011, analyst firm LM Research issued a report (the “Report”) alleging, among other things, that the Company’s statement of revenue and earnings for the fiscal year 2009 are materially false and misleading. The Report, citing sources, claims that China Agritech’s U.S. financial statements were materially different than the financial statements filed with Chinese authorities by a number of the Company’s subsidiaries. The report claims that the revenue reported in the Company’s SEC filings for 2009 is ten times larger than what the Chinese regulatory reports show. The LM Research report also noted a number of potential badges of fraud within the Company. The Complaint alleges that when these disclosures of potential fraud concerning China Agritech were revealed to the market, the price of China Agritech stock dropped, damaging investors.

On May 16, 2011, Judge R. Gary Klausner denied the pending motions for consolidation and appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On June 22, 2011, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed. The Amended Complaint named additional defendants in the action, expanded the alleged class period, and included additional claims. The defendants responded by filing several motions to dismiss on August 5, 2011.

According to the Minute Order signed by Judge R. Gary Klausner on October 27, 2011, in light of the foregoing, all of Plaintiff Yongs claims are dismissed. As to the remaining Plaintiffs, the Court orders the following: Defendants Agritechs and Individual Defendants Rule (12)(b)(6) Motions as to Plaintiffs First Claim are denied; Individual Defendants Rule (12)(b)(6) Motion as to Plaintiffs Second Claim are denied; Defendants Rule (12)(b)(1) Motions as to Plaintiffs Third Claim are denied; Defendants Rule (12)(b)(6) Motions as to Plaintiffs Third Claim are granted; and Individual Defendants (12)(b)(6) motions as to Plaintiffs Fourth Claim are granted.

On January 6, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.

On May 3, 2012, pursuant to civil minutes that were recorded in chambers regarding the Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Expert Declaration, the Court denied both parties’ motions.

On September 20, 2012, the Court issued an Order granting dismissal of all claims with prejudice following a stipulation of the parties.

This case continues under Docket 14-CV-05083. Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on September 4, 2014. Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the amended Complaint on September 22. On December 1, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. On January 7, 2015, the Court issued an Order dismissing the remaining Defendants. On March 19, Plaintiffs filed a Notice appealing the Court's Dismissal Order.

On May 24, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued a memorandum reversing the decision of the District Court and remanding for proceedings consistent with their opinion. On October 4, Plaintiffs filed a second amended Complaint. On December 13, the Court issued an Order dismissing claims against one of the Individual Defendants.

On December 8, 2017, Defendants file a Notice of Grant of Petition for Writ of Certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 18, the Court issued an Order staying the case, pending decision of the matter by the Supreme Court.

On June 11, 2018, the Supreme Court issued their opinion, in which the judgment of the lower court was reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court. On October 3, Plaintiffs filed a third amended Complaint. Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended Complaint on January 9, 2019.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on June 27, 2019.


Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Chemical Manufacturing
Headquarters: China


Ticker Symbol: CAGC
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 11-CV-01331
JUDGE: Hon. R Gary Klausner
DATE FILED: 02/11/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/03/2011
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 14-CV-05083
JUDGE: Hon. R Gary Klausner
DATE FILED: 01/09/2019
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/11/2011
  1. Brower Piven (New York)
  2. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (San Diego)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available
No Document Title Filing Date