Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 11/07/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 25, 2015

According to the law firm press release, Volkswagen is one of the world’s leading automobile manufacturers and the largest carmaker in Europe.

The complaint alleges that prior to and during the Class Period, defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud and made numerous materially false and misleading statements and omissions to investors regarding the Company’s operations and its business and financial condition and outlook. Specifically, defendants misled investors by failing to disclose that the Company had utilized a “defeat device” in certain of its diesel cars that allowed such cars to temporarily reduce emissions during testing, while achieving higher performance and fuel economy, as well as discharging dramatically higher emissions, when testing was not being conducted. The use of this device allowed Volkswagen to market its diesel vehicles to environmentally conscious consumers, increasing its sale of diesel cars in the United States and abroad and, as a result, its profitability. As a result of defendants’ scheme and false and misleading statements and omissions, Volkswagen’s ordinary and preferred ADRs traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching highs of $54.82 and $56.55 per ADR, respectively, on December 30, 2013.

On December 23, 2015, this case was transferred to the Northern District of California.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Auto & Truck Manufacturers
Headquarters: Germany

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: VLKAY
Company Market: OTC-BB
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: E.D. Virginia
DOCKET #: 15-CV-01228
JUDGE: Hon. Liam O'Grady
DATE FILED: 09/25/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/19/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/21/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Craig C. Reilly, Esq.
    111 Oronoco Street, Craig C. Reilly, Esq., VA 22314
    703.549.5354 703.549.5354 ·
  2. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco)
    100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Francisco), CA 94111
    415.288.4545 415.288.4534 ·
  3. VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C.
    79 Alfred Street, VanOverbeke Michaud & Timmony, P.C., MI 48201
    313.578.1200 313.578.1200 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 15-CV-06026
JUDGE: Hon. Liam O'Grady
DATE FILED: 12/28/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/19/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/21/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bailey & Glasser LLP
    910 17th Street NW Suite 800 , Bailey & Glasser LLP , DC 20006
    (202) 543-0226 (202) 463-2103 ·
  2. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (New Seattle)
    1918 Eighth Ave. Suite 3300, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (New Seattle), WA 98101
    206.623.7292 206.623.0594 ·
  3. Law Office of Peter Fredman
    125 University Ave., Suite 102, Law Office of Peter Fredman, CA 94710
    (510) 868-2626 (510) 868-2627 ·
No Document Title Filing Date