Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/13/2013 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: November 29, 2011

According to a press release dated November 29, 2011, the Complaint charges the defendants with violations of the federal securities laws.

On April 29, 2011, the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. As a result of the Company’s filing for protection under the Bankruptcy Code, it has not been named as a defendant.

The Complaint names certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers as defendants. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company’s Thermo No. 1 geothermal plant. Unbeknownst to the investment community, soon after it was completed, the Thermo No. 1 geothermal plant evidenced material design deficiencies and use of inefficient recirculation pumps. In addition, heat transfer could not be implemented successfully because of an inadequate testing of well field temperature and an inadequate test of well flow prior to construction. As a result, by approximately June 2009, Defendants knew that the Thermo No. 1 geothermal plant could not raise its output above a net level of approximately 6.6 megawatts and, at this level, it was impossible for the Thermo No. 1 geothermal plant to operate at a profit or for the cost of the plant to be recovered through ongoing operations. Accordingly, for accounting purposes, the Thermo No. 1 geothermal plant was impaired.

Had the Company properly recognized its impairment losses throughout the Class Period: (i) Plaintiff and the Class would have been made aware of the fact that the Thermo No. 1 geothermal power plant was incapable of generating cash sufficient to recover its carrying value, and (ii) the Company’s balance sheet would have reflected the fact that liabilities materially exceeded assets and that, accordingly, the Company was in a technical state of bankruptcy, which might have triggered adverse actions by the Company’s creditors. The Plaintiffs claim Defendants’ failure to disclose the existence of the design deficiencies that limited Thermo No. 1’s output, and Defendants’ material overstatement of the carrying value of Thermo No. 1, caused the market price of Raser’s common stock to be artificially inflated during the Class Period.

On March 1, 2012, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and approving the selection of Lead Counsel.

On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint.

On April 23, 2013, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs did not file, thus the Court dismissed this case with prejudice on May 13.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RZTIQ
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. Delaware
DOCKET #: 11-CV-01173
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 11/29/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/11/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/29/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Egleston Law Firm
    360 Furman Street, Suite 443 , Egleston Law Firm, NY 11201
    (646) 227-1700 (646) 227-1701 ·
  2. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
    919 N. Market Street, Suite 980, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., DE 19803
    302.295.5310 302.295.5310 · info@rigrodskylong.com
  3. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. (Garden City)
    585 Stewart Avenue, Suite 304, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. (Garden City), NY 11530
    (516) 683-3516 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Delaware
DOCKET #: 11-CV-01173
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 04/30/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/11/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/29/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
    919 N. Market Street, Suite 980, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., DE 19803
    302.295.5310 302.295.5310 · info@rigrodskylong.com
No Document Title Filing Date