Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 03/19/2014 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: April 01, 2011

According to a press release dated April 1, 2011, the Complaint alleges that the Company made a number of misrepresentations in its public filings with the Securities Exchange Commission and in its press releases. Namely, that: (1) the Company misrepresented certain of its distribution arrangements; (2) that Advanced Battery paid $1.5 million to acquire another company that appears to be fake because its location and existence could not be verified; (3) that Advanced Battery paid $20 million to purchase a company, but failed to disclose the related party nature of the transaction; and (4) the Company misrepresented that it owned a Company subsidiary when it did not, or the Company failed to disclose that the Company entered into a related party transaction with the Company's Chairman and CEO which resulted in the owner of that subsidiary being the Chairman and CEO, and not Advanced Battery. On March 30, 2011 an analyst firm called Variant View Research issued a detailed report revealing the adverse information to the market. When these details of the Company's financial condition came to light on March 30, 2011, the price of Advanced Battery's stock fell over 40%, damaging investors.

According to the Memorandum and Order signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on September 9, 2011, Sanderson's motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead plaintiff's selection of counsel is granted and Pehlke's identical motion is denied. The motions of all parties for consolidation of the related cases is granted. It is hereby ordered that: The above-captioned actions are hereby consolidated for all purposes into one action. These actions shall be referred to herein as the "Consolidated Actions." This Order shall apply to the Consolidated Actions and to each case that is subsequently filed in this Court that relates to the same subject matter as in the Consolidated Actions. Every pleading in this Consolidated Action shall bear the following Caption: In re Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, and as further set forth in this order. The Master File shall be No. 11 Civ. 2279 (CM). The Court hereby appoints Ruble Sanderson ("Sanderson") as Lead Plaintiff, for the reasons set forth in this order. The Court hereby approves of Sanderson's selection of Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross, LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in this action, for the reasons set forth in this order.

The plaintiff filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 28, 2011, and amended their complaint the next day. The defendants responded by filing several motions to dismiss in November 2011.

On August 29, 2012, the Court issued an Order ruling on Defendants' motions to dismiss. THE ABAT Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I and II were denied. The Auditor Defendants' separate motions to dismiss Count III were granted.

On April 24, 2013, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement.

On July 18, 2013, the Court issued an Order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Auditor Defendants were dismissed from this case. On August 19, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Notice appealing the July 18 Order.

On November 26, 2013, the Court issued an Order preliminarily approving the Settlement.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Appliance & Tool
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ABAT
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 11-CV-02279
JUDGE: Hon. Colleen McMahon
DATE FILED: 04/01/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/16/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/29/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York)
    350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York), NY 10118
    212.686.1060 212.202.3827 · lrosen@rosenlegal.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 11-CV-02279
JUDGE: Hon. Colleen McMahon
DATE FILED: 09/29/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/15/2007
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/29/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date