Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 10/08/2015 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: August 02, 2012

According to the law firm press release, the Complaint charges Suntech and certain of the Company’s executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Suntech, a solar energy company, engages in the design, development, manufacture and marketing of photovoltaic products. 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 Suntech’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 Suntech had not been pledged EURO 560.0 million in German government bonds from GSF Capital Pte Ltd., in connection with its May 2010 financing arrangement with the China Development Bank; (2) that the Company lacked internal and financial controls; and (3) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 30, 2012 the Company disclosed that it was conducting an investigation into the security interest that Suntech purportedly received in May 2010 from GSF Capital Pte Ltd, the parent of the general partner of Global Solar Fund, S.C.A, Sicar (“GSF”), an investment fund created to make investments in private companies that own or develop projects in the solar energy sector that had 80% of its share equity owned by Suntech. According to the Company, outside counsel that had been hired as part of Suntech's initiative to monetize its investment in GSF had noted certain facts and circumstances suggesting that the German government bonds in the amount of EURO 560.0 million purportedly pledged to the Company may not have ever existed. The Company further disclosed that it had filed legal claims against relevant parties in multiple jurisdictions to assert control of GSF and its assets.

On this news, shares of the Company declined $0.23 per share, or 14.65%, to close on July 30, 2012, at $1.34 per share, on unusually heavy volume, and further declined another $0.21, or 15.67%, to close on July 31, 2012, at $1.13 per share, also on unusually heavy volume.

On November 14, 2012, an Order was issued by the Court consolidating the cases under the caption: Bruce v. Suntech Power Holdings Company, Inc.; and under the docket number: 12-cv-0406. Also on the same day, there was an Order Appointing Suntech Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff.

On October 14, 2013 an involuntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code was filed against Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd. by four alleged creditors of the Company. It was further noted that the filing of the Involuntary Petition operates as a stay of “the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title.”

On August 14, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on October 8.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: STP
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 12-CV-04061
JUDGE: Hon. Richard Seeborg
DATE FILED: 08/02/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/18/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/30/2012
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: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 12-CV-04061
JUDGE: Hon. Richard Seeborg
DATE FILED: 02/05/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/04/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/30/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Washington DC)
    1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Washington DC), DC 20005
    202.408.4600 202.408.4600 ·
  2. Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Glancy Binkow & GoldBerg LLP, CA 90067
    310-201-9150 · info@glancylaw.com
  3. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (Chicago)
    10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (Chicago), IL 60603
    312.377.1181 312.377.1181 ·
No Document Title Filing Date