Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 01/29/2014 (Other)

Filing Date: November 07, 2011

According to a press release dated November 7, 2011, the complaint charges Defendants with violations of the federal securities laws in connection with various false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s financials and business operations.

On April 5, 2011, the Company announced that it was going to acquire the well nown snack business. The Company represented to investors that the Acquisition would be completed by December 2011.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was underestimating the ultimate price to be paid to walnut growers; (2) that the Company was improperly accounting for its cost of sales; (3) that, as a result, the Company's financial results were overstated; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's positive statements about its business, operations, and prospects, as well as those regarding the timetable for the Acquisition, lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 1, 2011, the Company disclosed that the Acquisition would be delayed until the first half of 2012. The Company revealed that the delay was the result of an internal investigation regarding payments to walnut growers. According to the Company, the investigation was prompted by the Chairman of the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors receiving an external communication regarding the Company’s accounting for certain crop payments to walnut growers. On this news, the Company's shares declined $11.33 per share, or 17.67%, to close on November 2, 2011, at $52.79 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On January 3, 2012, The Court issued an order relating the following cases: 11-CV-05386 Salhuana v. Diamond Foods, Inc., et al,; 11-CV-05399 Mitchem v. Diamond Foods, Inc., et al.; 11-CV-05409 Woodward v. Diamond Foods, Inc., et al.; 11-CV-05457 Rall, et al. v. Diamond Foods, Inc., et al.; 11-CV-05479 Simon v. Diamond Foods, Inc., et al.; 11-CV-05615 MacFarland v. Diamond Foods, Inc., et al.

On January 24, 2012, the Court issued an order consolidating the cases mentioned in the January 3rd order under the caption, In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Securities Litigation, and Case Number 11- CV-05386.

On March 20, 2012, the Court issued an order appointing lead plaintiff.

On July 30, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.

On November 30, 2012, the Court issued an Order denying the motions to dismiss of certain defendants and granting the motion to dismiss of a certain defendant.

On May 6, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the motion to certify a class in this action, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).

On August 21, 2013, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement. The Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on September 26. On January 10, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting final approval of the Settlement and also awarding attorneys' fees and expenses.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Food Processing
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DMND
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 11-CV-05386
JUDGE: Hon. William Alsup
DATE FILED: 11/07/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/05/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/01/2011
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
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 11-CV-05386
JUDGE: Hon. William Alsup
DATE FILED: 07/30/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/05/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/08/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta)
    2300 Promenade II; 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP (Atlanta), GA 30309
    888.873.3999 404.876.4476 · info@chitwoodlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date