Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/18/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: February 10, 2015

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period: (a) according to Indian government export documents, Amira fraudulently overstated its Indian-produced basmati rice exports, thereby overstating revenues by at least 24% and 18.7% in FY 2013 and 2014, respectively; (b) Amira concealed that many of its counterparties are secretly related parties, including its largest customer, one of its largest suppliers/National distributor, a company (secretly owned by Amira’s CEO) to whom Amira proposes to pay $30 million to buy land that company bought for far less, and over a dozen related parties that situated inside Amira’s headquarters, some of which are in the same business as Amira, that appear to be directed by Amira’s CEO or his wife, and that Amira had to disclose that transactions with these entities were related party transactions, but it did not; (c) Amira’s CEO used company money to pay his own personal household expenses, including salaries for a personal house manager and a chef for his farmhouse.

The lawsuit alleges that the truth was disclosed on two occasions, on April 3, 2013, causing its stock price to fall to $1.10 by April 5, or almost 20%, from its close on April 2, and on February 9, 2015, causing Amira’s stock price to fall $3.45, or almost 26% from its previous close.

On July 18, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Non-Cyclical
Industry: Food Processing
Headquarters: United Arab Emirates

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: ANFI
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-00957
JUDGE: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
DATE FILED: 02/10/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/27/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/09/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-00957
JUDGE: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin
DATE FILED: 09/17/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 10/10/2012
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/20/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Green & Noblin P.C.
    700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275, Green & Noblin P.C., CA 94939
    415.477.6700 415.477.6710 ·
  2. Morgan & Morgan
    28 West 44th Street, Morgan & Morgan, NY 10036
    (212) 564-1637 ·
No Document Title Filing Date