Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 10/16/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: February 22, 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) Rentech’s resources were not sufficient to overcome any operating challenges and remaining bottleneck at the Wawa facility; (2) consequently, the Wawa facility would not reach approximately 60% of production capacity within the next couple quarters and achieve full capacity in the range of 400,000 to 450,000 metric tons late in the year; (3) as a result, defendants’ statements about Rentech’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases at all relevant times. On February 21, 2017, Rentech announced its decision to idle the Wawa facility due to equipment and operational issues that would require additional unbudgeted capital investment. On this news, shares of Rentech fell $1.31 per share or over 47% from its previous closing price to close at $1.44 per share on February 21, 2017, damaging investors.

The first identified case was voluntarily dismissed on May 10, 2017. A related action continues in the Central District of California under 17-CV-01490.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

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

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: RTK
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 17-CV-00997
JUDGE: Hon. Leonard D. Wexler
DATE FILED: 02/22/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/09/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/20/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 17-CV-01490
JUDGE: Hon. Leonard D. Wexler
DATE FILED: 07/10/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 03/15/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 04/06/2017
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. Holzer & Holzer, LLC
    1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107, Holzer & Holzer, LLC, GA 30338
    770.392.0090 770.392-0029 · mfistel@holzerlaw.com
No Document Title Filing Date