Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 05/18/2020 (Date of last review)

Filing Date: October 31, 2018

According to the Complaint, Honeywell is a multinational conglomerate that makes a variety of commercial and consumer products, engineering services, and aerospace systems. Honeywell previously owned Bendix Friction Materials (“Bendix”), a manufacturer of automotive, truck and industrial brakes. Despite known health hazards, Bendix used asbestos in its brake- and clutch-pad products until 2001. Honeywell sold Bendix in 2014.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Honeywell’s business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Honeywell’s Bendix asbestos-related liability was greater than initially reported; (ii) the Company maintained improper accounting practices in connection with its Bendix asbestos-related liability; and (iii) as a result, Honeywell’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 26, 2019, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on April 10. On August 19, Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint. Lead Plaintiff filed a third amended Complaint on December 30. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the third amended Complaint on February 7, 2020. On May 18, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Capital Goods
Industry: Aerospace & Defense
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HON
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: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 18-CV-15536
JUDGE: Hon. William J. Martini
DATE FILED: 10/31/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/09/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/19/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. New Jersey
DOCKET #: 18-CV-15536
JUDGE: Hon. William J. Martini
DATE FILED: 12/30/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/09/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/19/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Decotiis, Fitzpatrick, Cole & Giblin, LLP
  2. Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC (Updated New York)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available