Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 04/14/2014 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: April 17, 2013

According to the law firm press release, Stockholm, Sweden-based Autoliv develops, markets and manufactures automotive safety products, including airbags, seatbelts, safety electronics, steering wheels, anti-whiplash systems, seat components and integrated child seats as well as active safety systems such as night vision, vision and radar systems.

The complaint alleges that prior to and during the Class Period, Autoliv engaged in wrongful anti-competitive business practices with other automotive industry suppliers. These practices were designed to control the market prices of the products sold by Autoliv and others. As a result, Autoliv reported quarter after quarter of “record” gross margins and earnings during the Class Period, causing artificial inflation in its stock price and seemingly justifying the payment of millions of dollars worth of salary increases and non-equity incentive awards to the Company’s executives.

The complaint further alleges that by February 2011, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) had begun investigating Autoliv’s anti-competitive practices and potential antitrust violations. Between the 7th and 9th of June 2011, the antitrust authorities of the European Commission (the “EC”) raided Autoliv’s German subsidiary seeking evidence of Autoliv’s anti-competitive misconduct. As the market assimilated the news of the EC raid disclosed on July 8, 2011, followed closely by statements during the Company’s July 25, 2011 second quarter earnings conference that the Company had already spent upwards of $4 million on legal fees and could no longer predict what impact the antitrust investigations would have on its previously reported and future gross margins and earnings, the price of Autoliv stock plummeted, closing below $62 per share on August 2, 2011.

On June 6, 2012, the DOJ announced that Autoliv had agreed to plead guilty to price fixing of automobile parts installed in U.S. cars and to pay a $14.5 million criminal fine. In so doing, Autoliv admitted to its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels installed in U.S. cars to one automobile manufacturer and a separate conspiracy to fix prices of seatbelts to another car manufacturer

According to the complaint, these known, but covert, illegal practices existed over an extended time frame and subjected the Company to material undisclosed risks, including monetary and reputational risks. These undisclosed risks are of particular significance to Autoliv since it is heavily dependent on a relatively small number of automobile manufacturers. In fact, Autoliv’s five largest customers accounted for 53% of its consolidated 2010 sales, the loss of any of which would result in a material adverse effect on the Company’s business.

On August 6, 2013, the Court issued an order appointing Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 IBEW, Monroe County Employees Retirement System, and Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis as lead Plaintiffs in this action; and the law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel.

On October 21, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws against the defendants.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Auto & Truck Parts
Headquarters: Sweden

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ALV
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 13-CV-02546
JUDGE: Hon. J. Paul Oetken
DATE FILED: 04/17/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/26/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/01/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 13-CV-02546
JUDGE: Hon. J. Paul Oetken
DATE FILED: 10/21/2013
CLASS PERIOD START:
CLASS PERIOD END:
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
No Document Title Filing Date