Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 11/02/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 21, 2015

According to the law firm press release, Shiloh manufactures and distributes lightweighting, noise and vibration solutions to automotive, commercial vehicle and other industrial markets.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company had underreported the cost related to its manufacturing of products; (2) that the Company engaged in irregular accounting practices related to surcharges assessed on steel at the Company’s facility in Wellington, Ohio; (3) that, as a result, the Company’s earnings and income were overstated; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Shiloh’s business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Upon disclosure of these issues the Company’s securities declined sharply in value, thereby damaging investors.

Plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint on February 23, 2016.

On March 23, 2017, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. On July 7, 2017, on an Order for Reconsideration, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to further amend their complaint. An amended complaint was filed on August 4.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Misc. Fabricated Products
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SHLO
Company Market: NASDAQ
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 #: 15-CV-07449
JUDGE: Hon. Kimba M. Wood
DATE FILED: 09/21/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/09/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/14/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
  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
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 15-CV-07449
JUDGE: Hon. Kimba M. Wood
DATE FILED: 08/04/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/12/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/14/2015
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
    1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, CA 90067
    (310) 201-9150 (310) 432-1495 ·
  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