Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/25/2016 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: April 30, 2015

According to the law firm press release, RYAM previously existed as the Performance Fibers Division of Rayonier, Inc. (“Rayonier”). On January 27, 2014, Rayonier announced that it would spin-off its Performance Fibers Division, to be effected as a tax-free spin-off whereby 100 percent of the new company’s shares would be distributed to shareholders of Rayonier. On June 30, 2014, Rayonier completed the spin-off of its Performance Fibers business (the “Separation”), resulting in two independent, publicly-traded companies.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period and including at the time of the Separation, Defendants misled RYAM’s public investors by disseminating a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning RYAM’s financial condition. In particular, RYAM improperly recorded and/or failed to record on its publicly issued financial statements material liabilities for environmental remediation and related obligations in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). RYAM also failed to provide sufficient disclosure to investors to permit a meaningful evaluation of the true scope and extent of these environmental remediation and related liabilities, which were associated with decades of environmental pollution. These materially misleading misstatements and omissions regarding the Company’s financial results occurred, in large part, because of at least the following: (1) Defendants incorrectly accounted for RYAM’s remediation and long-term monitoring and maintenance for environmental liabilities; (2) as a result, the Company understated its Environmental Reserves; (3) as a result, the Company did not record appropriate reserves as required by GAAP; (4) as a result, the Company did not disclose a range of possible reserves for probable and reasonably estimable environmental remediation and related liabilities as required by GAAP; (5) as a result, RYAM did not properly estimate known and probable environmental remediation obligations as required by GAAP; and (6) as a result, RYAM did not maintain adequate internal and financial controls.

In addition, throughout the Class Period including at the time of the spin-off, Defendants also misled RYAM’s public investors about the true demand for its products, namely acetate. While Defendants continuously touted that acetate demand was growing, in reality, demand was slowing, particularly because large customers in China had excess inventories.

Furthermore, as part of the spin-off process, RYAM incurred approximately $950 million of new debt to effect the Separation. Approximately $906 million of borrowings from the debt issuance was distributed back to RYAM’s former parent company. RYAM knowingly and/or recklessly made misleading and false statements so that it could effectuate the Separation and raise borrowings in amounts and on terms that it otherwise would not have been able to receive.

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting decline in the market value of the RYAM’s shares of common stock, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired shares of RYAM common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). Plaintiff is represented by Saxena White and Grant & Eisenhofer, which have extensive experience in successfully prosecuting investor class actions, including actions involving financial fraud.

An amended complaint was filed on September 11, 2015.

On April 26, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs did not file, thus Judgment in favor of Defendants was entered on July 25.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Chemical Manufacturing
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RYAM
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: M.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 15-CV-00546
JUDGE: Hon. Timothy J. Corrigan
DATE FILED: 04/30/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/30/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/28/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Grant & Eisenhofer (New York)
    485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor, Grant & Eisenhofer (New York), NY
    646.722.8500 646.722.8500 · lawyers@gelaw.com
  2. Saxena White PA (Boca Raton)
    2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257, Saxena White PA (Boca Raton), FL 33431
    561.394.3399 561.394.3399 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: M.D. Florida
DOCKET #: 15-CV-00546
JUDGE: Hon. Timothy J. Corrigan
DATE FILED: 09/11/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/30/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/27/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Grant & Eisenhofer (New York)
    485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor, Grant & Eisenhofer (New York), NY
    646.722.8500 646.722.8500 · lawyers@gelaw.com
  2. Saxena White PA (Boca Raton)
    2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257, Saxena White PA (Boca Raton), FL 33431
    561.394.3399 561.394.3399 ·
No Document Title Filing Date