Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/12/2012 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: July 23, 2012

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint charges EDU and certain of the Company’s executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. EDU provides private educational services, primarily in 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 the EDU’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 the Company lacked a sufficient basis for the consolidation of Beijing New Oriental Education & Technology (Group) Co., Ltd., a variable interest entity of the Company, and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, into EDU’s consolidated financial statements; (2) that, as a result, the Company was improperly consolidating Beijing New Oriental Education & Technology (Group) Co., Ltd., into EDU’s consolidated financial statements; (3) that, contrary to the Company’s representations, EDU’s entire store network is not company-owned because EDU has numerous franchisees; (4) that upfront franchise and other fees had inflated EDU’s cash balances; (5) that the schools that conduct EDU’s operations were ultimately state property; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s financial results were misstated during the Class Period; (7) that the Company lacked internal and financial controls; and (8) that, as a result, the Company’s financial statements and financial results were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 17, 2012, EDU disclosed that on July 13, 2012, the Company was informed that the SEC had issued a formal order of investigation captioned, “In the Matter of New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc.” According to EDU, the Company believes that the investigation concerns whether there is a sufficient basis for the consolidation of Beijing New Oriental Education & Technology (Group) Co., Ltd., a variable interest entity of the Company, and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, into EDU’s consolidated financial statements. On this news, shares of the Company declined $7.64 per share, or 34.32%, to close on July 17, 2012, at $14.62 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

Thereafter, on July 18, 2012, a report was published by the research firm Muddy Waters Research, entitled, “Initiating Coverage on EDU – Strong Sell.” The firm rated EDU a “Strong Sell because it is probable that EDU will have a significant restatement and that its auditor will resign.” On this news, shares of the Company declined $5.12 per share, or 35.02%, to close on July 18, 2012, at $9.50 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

On October 12, 2012, the Plaintiff entered a Notice into the Court's docket voluntarily dismissing this action with prejudice.

In a Stipulation filed on October 25, 2012, the related cases were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re New Oriental Education & Technology Group Securities Litigation, No. 12-cv-05724, along with lead plaintiff and lead counsel being appointed.

On December 10, 2012, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff against the defendants.

On December 23, 2013, in the Court’s Opinion and Order the defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Schools
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: EDU
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. New York
DOCKET #: 12-CV-06316
JUDGE: Hon. Margaret M. Morrow
DATE FILED: 07/23/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/21/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles)
    1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    310.201.915 310. 201-916 · 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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 12-CV-05724
JUDGE: Hon. Margaret M. Morrow
DATE FILED: 07/25/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/21/2009
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/17/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Grant & Eisenhofer (New York)
    485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor, Grant & Eisenhofer (New York), NY
    646.722.8500 646.722.8500 · lawyers@gelaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date