Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/11/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: February 15, 2017

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Northern Dynasty’s Pebble project is commercially unviable; (2) Northern Dynasty’s Pebble project had a negative present value; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ statements about Northern Dynasty’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases at all relevant times. On February 14, 2017, Kerrisdale Capital Management published a report asserting that Northern Dynasty’s Pebble Project is commercial unviable and Northern Dynasty has spent years trying to conceal from public that its Pebble project had a negative present value. On this news, shares of Northern Dynasty fell $0.68 per share or over 21% to close at $2.50 per share on February 14, 2017, damaging investors.

On June 6, 2017, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on September 12, 2017. A corrected version of this complaint was filed on October 11.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Metal Mining
Headquarters: Canada

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: NAK
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 17-CV-01241
JUDGE: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez
DATE FILED: 02/15/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/16/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/13/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles)
    355 South Grand Ave, Suite 2450, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. (New Los Angeles), CA 90071
    (213) 785-2610 (213) 226-4684 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 17-CV-01241
JUDGE: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez
DATE FILED: 10/11/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/16/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/13/2017
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. Kirby McInerney LLP (New York)
    825 Third Avenue, Kirby McInerney LLP (New York), NY 10022
    212.371.6600 212.371.6600 ·
No Document Title Filing Date