Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 12/11/2012 (Other)

Filing Date: May 25, 2012

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against ChinaCast and its officers and directors for issuing false and misleading information to investors about the Company’s true financial and business condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges ChinaCast issued materially false and misleading financial statements during the Class Period because of undisclosed material weaknesses in the Company’s internal controls and the alleged wrongful transfer of $120 million in cash by CEO Chan from bank accounts of ChinaCast’s subsidiaries.

On August 22, 2012, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and approving the selection of lead counsel.

On September 17, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint.

On December 7, 2012, the Court issued an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.

On December 10, 2012, lead plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Minutes (In Chambers) Order ofthe Honorable John F. Walter granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.


COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Schools
Headquarters: Hong Kong

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CAST
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 12-CV-04621
JUDGE: Hon. John F. Walter
DATE FILED: 05/25/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/14/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/02/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
    333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., CA 90071
    213.785.2610 213.226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 12-CV-04621
JUDGE: Hon. John F. Walter
DATE FILED: 09/17/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/14/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/02/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  2. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
    333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., CA 90071
    213.785.2610 213.226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date