China Integrated Energy, Inc, ("China Energy") is primarily in the business of petroleum refining.

According to a Complaint filed on March 25, 2011, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company misrepresented the number of buses in its advertising network; (2) that the Company misrepresented the nature and extent of its business relationships; (3) that, as a result, the Company's financial results were overstated during the Class Period; and (4), as a result of the above, that the Company's statements concerning its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

A similar, purported class action Complaint was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On August 29, 2011, the Court appointed Puerto Rico Teachers Retirement System as the lead Plaintiff and approved of its choice of lead Counsel, and on December 20, 2011, the lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action Complaint. The Complaint added certain claims and certain Defendants to the action.

On April 2, 2012, the Court issued an order denying certain Defendant's motion to dismiss and also denying Defendant's motion to stay discovery.

On July 12, 2012, the Court issued an order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims alleging violations of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On September 25, 2012, the Court issued an order staying this case pending mediation. The stay was lifted by order of the Court on January 22, 2013.

On April 22, 2013, the Court issued an order denying the motions to dismiss of certain individual Defendants.

In August 4, 2014, the Court issued an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiffs entered a Stipulation of Settlement with the auditor Defendant.

On February 17, 2015, the Court’s Civil Minutes outlined the dispositions for previously filed Motion to Certify Class; Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Witness; and Motion to Exclude Defendants’ Expert Witness. According to the Order, after considering the parties’ papers, the deposition and hearing testimonies, and the expert declarations, the Court finds that both Dr. Roper and Dr. Hartzell are sufficiently qualified to opine on the matter of market efficiency. In light of their varying testimony and the facts of this case, the Court further concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the fraud-on-the-market presumption should apply, and that they have consequently satisfied the elements necessary for class certification. Accordingly, both parties’ motions to exclude the other’s expert witness are DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is GRANTED.

On December 9, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement. Preliminary approval was granted February 3, 2016. Final approval was granted July 22.