Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 05/05/2014 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 06, 2011

According to a press release dated April 6, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased American Superconductor Corporation ("AMSC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:AMSC) securities during the Class Period. AMSC provides wind turbine designs and electrical control systems primarily in North America, Europe and the
Asia-Pacific.

During the Class Period, AMSC's quarterly revenues were largely derived from one primary customer - Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. ("Sinovel"), a manufacturer of wind turbines based in China. Sales to Sinovel represented 79% and 73% of the Company's total revenues reported for the 2010 fiscal second and third quarters, respectively.

The Complaint charges AMSC and certain of its executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AMSC was providing Sinovel with contracted shipments in excess of its needs; (2) Sinovel was not paying AMSC for certain contracted shipments; (3) AMSC was continuing to provide Sinovel with contracted shipments although Sinovel was not paying for certain prior shipments; (4) as a result, AMSC was improperly recognizing revenue on certain contracted shipments to Sinovel; (5) as a result, AMSC's revenues were overstated; and (6), the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

On April 5, 2011, AMSC disclosed that on March 31, 2011, the last day of AMSC's 2010 fiscal year, that Sinovel refused to accept contracted shipments, and AMSC believed Sinovel intended to reduce its level of inventory before accepting any further contracted shipments. As a result, AMSC's earnings for the 2010 fourth quarter and fiscal year would be substantially below previous forecasts. As a result of accumulated aged accounts receivable due to payment delays and Sinovel's recent refusal to accept March deliveries, AMSC informed investors it was reviewing the appropriateness of the timing of its revenue recognition on approximately $56 million of unpaid shipments in the second, third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2010. On this news, the Company's shares declined $10.41 per share, or 41.84%, to close on April 6, 2011, at $14.47 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On June 20, 2011, the Court released an order appointing the lead Plaintiff and approving Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel and Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP as Liaison Counsel.

On August 31, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.

On February 13, 2012, a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants.

On July 26, 2012, a Memorandum & Order was issued by the Court granting the Issuer and Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss, but denying the Underwriters’ motion to dismiss.

On May 20, 2013, the Court issued an Order administratively closing this case. The case may be reopened upon motion of any party.

On November 20, 2013, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on December 18th. On May 2, 2014, the Court issued a Final Judgment approving the Settlement and ordered this case dismissed with prejudice. This was accompanied by an Order awarding attorneys' fees and expenses.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Electronic Instruments & Controls
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AMSC
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: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 11-CV-10582
JUDGE: Hon. Nancy Gertner
DATE FILED: 04/06/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/02/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/05/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
  3. Saxena White PA (Boca Raton)
    2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257, Saxena White PA (Boca Raton), FL 33431
    561.394.3399 561.394.3399 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Massachusetts
DOCKET #: 11-CV-10582
JUDGE: Hon. Nancy Gertner
DATE FILED: 08/31/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/29/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/11/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston)
    53 State Street, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP (Boston), MA 02109
    617.439.3939 617.439.0134 · info@shulaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date