Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED  
—On or around 01/31/2014 (Date of order of final judgment)
Current/Last Presiding Judge:  
Hon. Louis L. Stanton

Filing Date: February 09, 2012

Carbo Ceramics, Inc. manufactures and sells ceramic technology products and services, base ceramic proppant, frac sand and spill prevention, containment and countermeasure systems for the oil and gas and industrial industries.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and misleading statement regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the Company was experiencing a dramatic decline in sales in the Haynesville region; (b) that the Company was being negatively impacted by logistical problems such that it was not able to shift resources to liquid plays where drilling activity was increasing; and (c) that, based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its operations and earnings during the Class Period.

On January 26, 2012, Carbo Ceramics issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year 2011, the periods ending December 31, 2011. That same day, the Company held a conference call with securities analysts for investors wherein it was revealed that the Company had seen a 70% decline in proppant sales in the Haynesville region and that it had been unable to shift resources to various liquid plays due to logistical issues. In response to the Company’s announcements, the price of Carbo Ceramics common stock declined from $130.72 per share to $103.76 on heavy trading volume.

On June 22, 2012, the Court entered an Order consolidating cases, appointing lead Plaintiffs, and approving the selection of lead Counsel.

On August 14, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended Complaint.

On June 26, 2013, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs may move for leave to replead.

On January 29, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' motion to amend. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants.

Protected Content


Please Log In or Sign Up for a free account to access restricted features of the Clearinghouse website, including the Advanced Search form and the full case pages.

When you sign up, you will have the option to save your search queries performed on the Advanced Search form.