Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 08/09/2013 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: April 29, 2011

According to the press release dated April 30, 2011, the Complaint alleges that Deer misrepresented its financial performance, business prospects, and financial condition to investors, citing inconsistent Chinese regulatory filings. The Complaint also alleges that Deer improperly recognized revenue in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”).

Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted to state material facts that rendered their affirmative statements misleading as they related to the Company's financial performance, business prospects, and true financial condition.

On July 21, 2011, the Court issued an order appointing lead counsel.

On September 6, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint.

On December 21, 2012, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. On March 22, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement. On August 9, the Court issued an Order and Judgment granting final approval of the Settlement, dismissing this case with prejudice, and approving attorneys' fees and expenses.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DEER
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-03701
JUDGE: Hon.Dolly M. Gee
DATE FILED: 04/29/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/31/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/21/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016
    (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827 ·
  2. 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-03701
JUDGE: Hon.Dolly M. Gee
DATE FILED: 09/06/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/13/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/21/2011
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