Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 12/01/2014 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: 六月 11, 2012

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint charges Ambow and certain of the Company’s executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Ambow provides educational and career enhancement services in the People’s Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Ambow’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that certain of the Company’s distributors did not have an adequate history of timely payment; (2) that, as such, the collection of resulting receivables from these distributors was not reasonably assured; (3) that, as a result, the Company was improperly recognizing revenue on sales to these distributors; (4) that the Company was improperly accounting for certain business acquisitions; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial results were misstated during the Class Period; (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (7) that, as a result of the above, the Company’s financial results were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 30, 2012, Ambow unexpectedly announced that it would be unable to timely file its Annual Report on Form 20-F with the SEC for the 2011 fiscal year. Thereafter, on May 16, 2012, Ambow disclosed that the Company was further delaying the filing of its 2011 Annual Report and that the Company had identified certain preliminary adjustments to its previously issued 2011 unaudited financial statements. According to the Company, Ambow expected, among others: (1) to change its revenue recognition method with respect to sales to certain distributors, leading to the reversal of between $13.5 million (RMB85 million) and $15.1 million (RMB95 million) of revenue previously recognized in 2011; (2) to make a bad debt provision of between $2.1 million (RMB13 million) and $2.4 million (RMB15 million); and (3) to increase its depreciation and other expenses by between $0.5 million (RMB3 million) and $0.6 million (RMB3.5 million).

As a result of this news, the Company's shares declined $0.99 per share, or 17.55%, to close on May 16, 2012, at $4.65 per share, on unusually heavy volume, and further declined $0.30 per share, or 6.45%, to close on May 17, 2012, at $4.35 per share, also on unusually heavy volume.

On November 19, 2012, the Court issued an Order consolidating related cases, appointing lead plaintiff, and approving the selection of lead counsel.

On February 19, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed the consolidated amended complaint. This was followed by the filing of a second consolidated amended complaint on May 3.

On August 15, 2013, the Court issued an In Chambers Order striking Defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants were allowed to refile the motions in accordance with the Court's Standing Order and the Local Rules.

On February 6, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint on March 17.

On October 24, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Schools
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: AMBO
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 12-CV-05062
JUDGE: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez
DATE FILED: 06/11/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/18/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/16/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  2. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 12-CV-05062
JUDGE: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez
DATE FILED: 03/17/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/05/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/27/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date