Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 01/30/2015 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 04, 2011

Weatherford International, Ltd. ("Weatherford") is a multinational oilfield and gas wells service company.

According to a press release dated March 11, 2011, the Complaint, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, charges that Weatherford and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by overstating earnings by an estimated $400 million to $600 million for the period from 2007 through 2010, and also because of the related deficiencies in internal controls, the market price of Weatherford stock was artificially inflated. Had the negative information been disclosed, the market price of Weatherford stock would have been much lower. Absent the failure to disclose this negative information, Plaintiffs would not have purchased Weatherford stock or warrants or they would have purchased Weatherford stock and warrants at a much lower price. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs paid an artificially inflated price for the Weatherford shares and warrants because Defendants omitted to state material facts necessary to make the public statements made by Defendants not misleading.

On July 6, 2011, the Court issued an order appointing American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund lead Plaintiff and approving Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead Counsel.

On July 8, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) dismissing the case without prejudice.

On August 26, 2011, an amended Complaint was filed by the Plaintiffs in the Southern District of New York.

On November 7, 2012, in a Memorandum Opinion, the Court denied the motions to dismiss the CEO and the Company with respect to the Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning the alleged misrepresentations of the Company’s internal controls. However, the accounting Defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted, due to a lack of pleading about the accountant Defendants’ state of mind. Finally, the Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the amended Complaint was denied.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on January 29, 2014. The Court issued an Order awarding attorneys' fees and expenses on January 5, 2015. On January 21, the Court issued an Order approving the settlement and entering Final Judgment. The Court issued an Order granting the Motion for Disbursement of Funds on March 1, 2017.

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.