Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/06/2013 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: September 10, 2012

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued material false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that Valence was headed for bankruptcy, downplayed the severity of the Company’s capital position, and misled investors about the Company’s business health and future prospects by evading inquiries concerning Valence’s liquidity and assuring the market of the Company’s available alternatives for raising capital.

Despite making positive statements, the Company did not have enough cash to meet its outstanding obligations. On July 12, 2012, Valence issued a press release disclosing to investors that the Company filed a voluntary petition for chapter 11 business reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas. When the true state of the Company’s business health became public, Valence’s shares lost approximately 92% of their value. After closing at $0.65 per share on July 13, 2012, shares of Valence Technology common stock closed on July 16, 2012 at just $0.05 per share.

On November 16, 2012, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel.

On January 10, 2013, this case was transferred to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas.

On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint.

On November 05, 2013, the Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Utilities
Industry: Electric Utilities
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: VLNCQ
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: W.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 12-CV-06842
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 09/10/2012
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/03/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/12/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon
    250 West 57th Street, Suite 1316, Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon, NY 10107
    212.810.2430 212.810.2427 · tamon@amonlaw.com
  2. Robbins Umeda LLP
    600 B Street, Suite 1900, Robbins Umeda LLP, CA 92101
    (619) 525-3990 619.525.3991 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: W.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 13-CV-00026
JUDGE: Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
DATE FILED: 03/25/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/03/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/12/2012
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Armbrust & Brown, PLLC
    100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300, Armbrust & Brown, PLLC, TX 78701
    512.435.2300 512.435.2360 ·
  2. Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon
    250 West 57th Street, Suite 1316, Law Offices of Thomas G. Amon, NY 10107
    212.810.2430 212.810.2427 · tamon@amonlaw.com
  3. Robbins Arroyo LLP
    600 B Street, Suite 1900, Robbins Arroyo LLP, CA 92101
    619.525.3990 619.525.3991 ·
No Document Title Filing Date