Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 01/22/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: March 25, 2011

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.

Also on February 17, 2015, an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement was entered by the Court.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil & Gas Operations
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CBEH
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-02559
JUDGE: Hon. Margaret M. Morrow
DATE FILED: 03/25/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/31/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/16/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
    333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., CA 90071
    213.785.2610 213.226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 11-CV-02559
JUDGE: Hon. Margaret M. Morrow
DATE FILED: 12/20/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/31/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/21/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (San Diego)
    12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky (San Diego), CA 92130
    858.792.3448 858.792.3448 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date