Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 06/25/2019 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: June 25, 2019

According to the Complaint, EQT Corporation calls itself the largest natural-gas producer in the United States.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants falsely stated that EQT's acquisition of Rice, a rival gas producer, would yield billions of dollars in synergies based on purported operational benefits. Specifically, on June 19, 2017, Defendants announced that EQT had entered into an agreement to acquire Rice for $6.7 billion. Defendants represented that because Rice had an acreage footprint largely contiguous to EQT's existing acreage, the acquisition would allow EQT to achieve "a 50% increase in average lateral [drilling] lengths" (as opposed to more traditional vertical well drilling). EQT claimed that as a result, the merger would result in $2.5 billion in synergies, including $100 million in cost savings in 2018 alone.

After the closing in November 2017, the Company continued to tout the "significant operational synergies" of the merger. The Complaint alleges that as a result of Defendants' misrepresentations, EQT shares traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil & Gas Operations
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: EQT
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: W.D. Pennsylvania
DOCKET #: 19-CV-00754
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 06/25/2019
CLASS PERIOD START: 06/19/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/24/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New New York)
    1251 Avenue of the Americas, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (New New York), NY 10020
    (212) 554-1400 (212) 554-1448 ·
  2. Weiss Burkardt Kramer LLC

    ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available