Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/24/2013 (Other)

Filing Date: November 07, 2011

According to a press release dated November 7, 2011, the complaint charges the Defendants with violations of the federal securities laws in connection with allegedly fraudulent financial discolures.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company's financial results were artificially inflated by virtue of the fact that the Company concealed material adverse problems present at one of its mines which eventually forced the Company to shut down the mine and write off a $260 million investment in the mine.

On October 19, 2011, the Company issued a press release disclosing the mine’s closure and due to this unexpected closure, the Company would take a $260 million write off of its investment. This news shocked the market, resulting in an 18.54% decline in the value of the Company’s stock on October 19th after the news was revealed. On that day, the shares closed at $46.51, down $10.59, on unusually high New York Stock Exchange volume.

On February 6, 2012, the Court issued an order of consolidation, appointed lead plaintiff, and approved the selection of lead counsel.

On April 6, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint.

On January 14, 2013, the Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and issued a subsequent judgment in the matter.

On February 12, 2013, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal from the January 14 judgment.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Gold & Silver
Headquarters: Canada

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AEM
Company Market: New York SE
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-07968
JUDGE: Hon.J. Paul Oetken
DATE FILED: 11/07/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/29/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/19/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Curtis V. Trinko LLP
    16 West 46th Street 7th Floor, Curtis V. Trinko LLP, NY 10036
    212.490.9550 212.986.0158 · ctrinko@trinko.com
  2. 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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 11-CV-07968
JUDGE: Hon.J. Paul Oetken
DATE FILED: 04/06/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/28/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/19/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY)
    1285 Avenue of the Americas, 33rd Floor, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New York, NY), NY 10019
    212.554.1400 212.554.1444 · blbg@blbglaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date