Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/25/2015 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: April 02, 2012

According to a press release dated April 3, 2012, the complaint charges Hyperdynamics and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Hyperdynamics is an independent oil and gas exploration company engaged in the development of prospects offshore the Republic of Guinea (“Guinea”) in West Africa.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result of defendants’ false statements, Hyperdynamics stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $6.35 per share on March 4, 2011.

On November 9, 2011, Hyperdynamics announced disappointing first quarter 2012 financial results and reported that it had increased the cost estimate for its first two exploration wells (the Sabu-1 and Baraka-1 wells) from $80 to $135 million due to an increased investment in its well logging program, infrastructure bottlenecks and operational issues with its drill ship. The Company further announced that there were delays in the progress of its Sabu-1 well and that given the operational challenges with Sabu-1, it might delay its plans for drilling its Baraka-1 well. Then, on February 15, 2012, Hyperdynamics announced extremely disappointing results from its Sabu-1 exploration well, reporting that the Sabu-1 well was unsuccessful, as the Company only encountered non-commercial quantities of oil from its exploration activities. On this news, the price of Hyperdynamics stock fell, closing at $1.44 per share on February 16, 2012, a one-day decline of 29% and a decline of 77% from its Class Period high.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) due to numerous cost overruns and delays, including logistical delays resulting from limited port facilities in Guinea as well as issues related to mechanical and operational matters surrounding the drilling of the Sabu-1 well, the Company would be unable to commence drilling on the Baraka-1 well; (b) the Company had far greater exposure to liquidity concerns than it had previously disclosed; and (c) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s drilling operations or the prospective value of the Company’s oil and gas concessions.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Hyperdynamics publicly traded securities during the Class Period (the “Class”).

On February 19, 2013, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.

The Court dismissed this case on August 25, 2015.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil & Gas Operations
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HDY
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. Texas
DOCKET #: 12-CV-00999
JUDGE: Hon.Melinda Harmon
DATE FILED: 04/02/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/17/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/15/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan & Bottini LLP
    550 West C Street, Suite 2000, Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan & Bottini LLP, CA 92101
    619-241-4810 ·
  2. Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP

    ·
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 12-CV-00999
JUDGE: Hon.Melinda Harmon
DATE FILED: 05/12/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/30/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/11/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Liebhard LLP (New York)
    10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor, Bernstein Liebhard LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.779.1414 212.779.1414 ·
  2. The Bilek Law Firm, L.L.P.
    808 Travis, Suite 802, The Bilek Law Firm, L.L.P., TX 77002
    713.227.7720 713.227.7720 ·
No Document Title Filing Date