Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 04/11/2017 (Date of order of distribution of settlement)

Filing Date: April 15, 2013

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.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Electronic Instruments & Controls
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: XIDE
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-02607
JUDGE: Hon. Stephen V. Wilson
DATE FILED: 04/15/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/09/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/03/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (New York)
    60 East 42nd Street - Suite 4600, Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC (New York), NY 10165
    212.697.6484 212.697.7296 · info@bgandg.com
  2. 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
  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
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 13-CV-02607
JUDGE: Hon. Stephen V. Wilson
DATE FILED: 04/24/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/01/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/24/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City)
    10205 N. Pennsylvania, Federman & Sherwood (Oklahoma City), OK 73120
    405.235.1560 405.235.1560 ·
  2. Green & Noblin P.C.
    700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275, Green & Noblin P.C., CA 94939
    415.477.6700 415.477.6710 ·
No Document Title Filing Date