According to the law firm press release, Exide operates in 80 countries producing, recycling and distributing lead-acid batteries. The Company operates eight battery recycling facilities worldwide, and its global transportation and industrial energy groups provide a range of stored electrical energy products and services for industrial and transportation applications. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants knew but misrepresented or failed to disclose to the investing public that: (a) Exide exposing almost 110,000 residents near its Vernon, California, battery recycling facility to dangerously high levels of pollutants; (b) Exide knew, based on actual and projected revenues and expenses, that the Company would not be able to meet its debt repayment obligations and other pledges and promises under a $200 million revolving facility, a $675 million bond, and a $55.7 million floating rate convertible note due in September 2013; and (c) as a result, Exide knew its environmental liabilities, debt obligations and potential insolvency supported neither Exide’s statements to investors that the Company was solvent, its quarterly guidance, nor the inflated share price targets the investment community was modeling based on defendants’ Class Period statements and guidance.
On March 22, 2013, the Company’s recycling facility in Vernon was cited by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) as posing a greater cancer risk to residents of Southern California than any of the more than 450 facilities the agency has regulated in the last 25 years.
Then, on April 3, 2013, Los Angeles City Council members held a public hearing asking the government to press charges against the Company to correct the health risk posed by the Company’s environmental contamination, and on April 4, 2013 Debtwire.com published a report that Exide had hired a financial advisory firm and a law firm to advise on the Company’s financial restructuring after prior restructuring efforts stalled. On this news, Exide’s shares fell $1.24 a share to $1.37 a share, a 46% drop on April 4, 2013, before trading in the stock was halted.
On July 9, 2013, the Court issued an order consolidating cases, appointing lead plaintiff, and approving lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.
On July 17, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a Notice voluntarily dismissing their claims against the issuer Defendant.
On September 9, 2013, a consolidated complaint was filed.
On August 7, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss, except for the dismissal of a Section 15 claim against a certain individual Defendant.
On March 7, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on April 6. On July 27, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting final approval of the Settlement and dismissing this case.