Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 06/14/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: December 20, 2018

Plaintiff's law firm issued a press release on December 21, 2018, announcing the filing of the lawsuit. According to the press release, on July 16, 2018, JA Solar, purported to be one of the world’s largest manufacturers of high-performance solar power products, completed its merger (the “Merger”) with JASO Top Holdings Limited (“JASO Top”), JASO Holdings Limited (“Holdco”), JASO Parent Limited (“Parent”), and JASO Acquisition Limited (“Merger Sub”) pursuant to the agreement and plan of merger dated November 17, 2017 by and among the parties. As a result of the Merger, the Company ceased to be a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ stock exchange.

The Complaint alleges that JA Solar shareholders were misled into accepting consideration from the Merger that was well below fair value for their JA Solar shares. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company’s Proxy materials misrepresented and/or omitted material information that was necessary for Company shareholders to make an informed decision concerning whether to vote in favor of the Merger; (2) that contrary to the representations in the Proxy, the Company already had plans to relist its shares in China prior to closing the Merger and its delisting from the NASDAQ; and (3) as a result, the Company’s statements about its business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

Plaintiff re-filed the Complaint on January 17, 2019. On March 8, the Court issued an Order appointing Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended Complaint on June 14.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: China

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: JASO
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 18-CV-12083
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr.
DATE FILED: 12/20/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 12/11/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/16/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Labaton Sucharow LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 18-CV-12083
JUDGE: Hon. Andrew L. Carter, Jr.
DATE FILED: 06/14/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/20/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/16/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Labaton Sucharow LLP
    140 Broadway, Labaton Sucharow LLP, NY 10005
    212.907.0700 212.818.0477 · info@labaton.com
  2. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available