Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 05/10/2013 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: August 18, 2011

According to a complaint dated August 18, 2011, the Complaint charges the Company and certain of its executive officers and/or directors with violations of federal securities laws.

In 2009 and 2010, Ener1 made separate investments in an electric- vehicle manufacturer and its majority parent company, a Norwegian limited liability company. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning the Company’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the companies invested in lacked adequate operating capital, and the ability to raise capital, to continue operations; (2) as a result, the Company failed to timely impair the value of its investments; (3) as a result, the outstanding loans receivable and accounts receivable were uncollectible; (4) as such, the Company’s financial statements were misstated and its financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”); and (5), as a result, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 22, 2011, the Company disclosed that a material charge was required under GAAP applicable to the Company, related to the loans receivable of the investments and accounts receivable of the investments held by the Company, based on the announcement by the investment company that, following an extended and ultimately unsuccessful search for long-term financing, it would be filing for bankruptcy proceedings in the Norwegian courts on June 22, 2011. The defendant Company estimated the amount of the charge would be $35.4 million, subject to change to the extent that the Company received any recovery as a result of the liquidation, but any recovery, to the extent it occurred, would not likely be significant.

Subsequently, on August 15, 2011, the Company disclosed that its financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2010 and for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 should no longer be relied upon and should be restated. The determination was made following an assessment of certain accounting matters related to the loans receivable owed to the Company by the Norwegian company and accounts receivable owed to the Company by the Norwegian company held by the Company, and the timing of the recognition of the impairment charge related to the Company’s investment in the Norwegian company originally recorded during the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 15, 2012, the Court issued an Order to consolidate cases 11cv5794 (as Lead Case) with 11cv5795 and 11cv6030. The Court also appointed Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel.

On April 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

On January 11, 2013, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement on February 8. On May 10, the Court issued a Judgment approving the Settlement, and also approved attorneys' fees and expenses.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HEV
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-05794
JUDGE: Hon.Paul A. Crotty
DATE FILED: 08/18/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/10/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/15/2011
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. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (Chicago)
    10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (Chicago), IL 60603
    312.377.1181 312.377.1181 ·
  4. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 11-CV-05794
JUDGE: Hon.Paul A. Crotty
DATE FILED: 04/10/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/04/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/15/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73102
    405-235-1560 · wfederman@aol.com
No Document Title Filing Date