According to the law firm press release, Samarco is a privately held Brazilian mining company, controlled in equal parts by the Brazilian mining company Vale S.A. (“Vale”) and the Australian mining company BHP Billiton Limited (“BHP”). The Company’s main product is iron ore pellets, made from minerals with low ore content and sold to steel makers worldwide.
Between 2012 and 2014, Samarco conducted at least three debt offerings. In 2012, the Company offered an aggregate principal amount of $1 billion of 4.125% notes due 2022 (the “2022 Notes”). In 2013, the Company offered an aggregate principal amount of $700 million of 5.75% notes due 2023 (the “2023 Notes”). In 2014, the Company offered an aggregate principal amount of $500 million of 5.375% notes due 2024 (the “2024 Notes”).
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company’s Fundão tailings dam had longstanding systemic and structural defects; (ii) despite representing to investors that Samarco had mitigated the risk of a catastrophic accident as much as possible through “a combination of risk management, careful evaluation, experience and knowledge,” Samarco had in fact ignored repeated, reliable warnings regarding the condition of the Fundão tailings dam; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Samarco’s business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On January 20, 2017, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on March 6. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on June 26. On March 7, 2018, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended Complaint.
Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint on March 21, 2018. On May 21, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the second amended Complaint. The Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on June 18, 2019, dismissing the case with prejudice.