Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/17/2014 (Other)

Filing Date: April 08, 2013

According to the Complaint, this action arises from a fraudulent scheme in which Puda insiders improperly transferred the Company's only revenue-producing, operating subsidiary to CITIC and then, with the assistance of CITIC, falsely portrayed to investors in Puda that the Company still possessed its operating subsidiary.

The Complaint alleges that in both its February 2010 and December 2010 public stock offerings, Puda represented to investors that it was a Delaware holding company, with substantially all of its operations conducted through its sole operating subsidiary, Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co., Ltd. ("Shanxi Coal"), which Puda indirectly owned through its ownership interests in two intermediary companies. Shanxi Coal owned all of Puda's mining assets and coal washing plants - and thus its cash and receivables. Shanxi Coal's operations were the sole source of Puda's revenues and profits. Because Puda owned 90% of Shanxi Coal, Puda was permitted to consolidate Shanxi Coal's operating results with its own in financial statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and presented to investors.

On March 11, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting defendant's motion to dismiss and terminating this action.

On April 7, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting a party's motion to intervene as a party plaintiff.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Metal Mining
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PUDA
Company Market: OTC-BB
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 #: 13-CV-02312
JUDGE: Hon. Katherine B. Forrest
DATE FILED: 04/08/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/15/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/03/2011
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. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
  3. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York)
    350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New York), NY 10118
    212.686.1060 212.202.3827 · lrosen@rosenlegal.com
No Document Title Filing Date