Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 01/28/2016 (Other)

Filing Date: November 18, 2013

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit claims that FAB Universal and certain of its officers and directors made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company overstated the number of Intelligent Media Kiosks (“Kiosks”) deployed in China; (b) its Kiosks were inundated with pirated digital media entertainment, and (c) a Company subsidiary issued RMB 100 million ($16.4 million) in bonds to Chinese investors. According to the Complaint, when these adverse facts entered the market, the value of FAB Universal securities declined, damaging investors.

On April 25, 2014, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on August 1.

On July 10, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. This Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on October 16, 2015. The Court granted final approval of the Settlement and dismissed this case with prejudice on January 28, 2016.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Printing & Publishing
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: FU
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-08216
JUDGE: Hon. Robert W. Sweet
DATE FILED: 11/18/2013
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/15/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/18/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016
    (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 13-CV-08216
JUDGE: Hon. Robert W. Sweet
DATE FILED: 08/01/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/15/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/21/2013
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York)
    685 3rd Avenue 26th Floor, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (New York), NY
    212..983.9330 212..983.9331 ·
  2. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York)
    275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. (New York), NY 10016
    (212) 686-1060 (212) 202-3827 ·
No Document Title Filing Date