Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 07/17/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 22, 2019

According to the Complaint, Ferroglobe purports to produce silicon metal, silicon-based alloys, and manganese-based alloys and to sell products such as aluminum, silicone compounds, automotive parts, photovoltaic cells, electronic semiconductors, and steel.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that there was excess supply of the Company’s products; (2) that demand for the Company’s products was declining; (3) that, as a result, the pricing of the Company’s products would be materially impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 2, 2019, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on July 17.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Metal Mining
Headquarters: United Kingdom

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: GSM
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 #: 19-CV-00629
JUDGE: Hon. Ronnie Abrams
DATE FILED: 01/22/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 08/21/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/26/2018
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 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 19-CV-00629
JUDGE: Hon. Ronnie Abrams
DATE FILED: 07/17/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/04/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/26/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (New York)
    122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 , Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (New York), NY 10168
    (212) 682-5340 (212) 884-0988 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available