Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/20/2016 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 25, 2015

According to the law firm press release, on August 7, 2015, the Company revealed that it intended to implement certain recommendations after the Strategic Committee of the LSB Industries Board of Directors reviewed the Company’s business strategy, corporate governance structure, related party transactions and other governance practices of the Company. Additionally the Company announced that the total cost to complete the El Dorado Facility expansion would now be in the range of $660 million to $680, significantly higher that its previous estimates of $495 million to $520 million on May 8, 2015. On this news, shares of LSB declined $12.09 per share, over 34%, to close on August 7, 2015, at $23.01 per share, on heavy volume. On September 3, 2015, the Company announced that LSB the President and Chief Executive Officer had resigned effective immediately.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that : (1) that the Company’s costs related to the expansion of the El Dorado Facility would be significantly higher than reported; and, (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company’s statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On December 15, 2015, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 17, 2016.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LXU
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 #: 15-CV-07614
JUDGE: Hon. Ronnie Abrams
DATE FILED: 09/25/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/08/2015
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/07/2015
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. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
    3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, PA 19020
    215.638.4847 215.638.4867 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 15-CV-07614
JUDGE: Hon. Ronnie Abrams
DATE FILED: 02/17/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/07/2014
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/05/2015
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 ·
No Document Title Filing Date