|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 4483 | Stocks | 11/21/2005
A class action has been filed against Refco, Inc. (RFX), certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between August 11, 2005 and October 7, 2005. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock.
Several purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed against Refco and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. Refco provides execution and clearing services for exchange traded derivatives; and brokerage services in the fixed income and foreign exchange markets in the United States, Bermuda, and the United Kingdom. Refco went public via an initial public offering in August 2005. A mere three months later, on October 10, 2005, Refco announced that its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and Chairman and controlling shareholder, was being placed on a leave of absence and that the Company had discovered, purportedly through an internal review, a receivable of $430 million owed by the CEO to the Company. The Company also announced that based on the undisclosed related party transaction, its prior financial statements should not be relied upon. According to the complaint, on or about August 10, 2005, Refco filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement"), for the IPO. On or about August 11, 2005, the Prospectus (the "Prospectus") with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and 26.5 million of Refco's common stock were sold to the public, thereby raising approximately $583 million. According to the complaint, the Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO was materially false and misleading for several reasons. As detailed in the complaint, Refco has now admitted that those financial statements should no longer be relied upon and will likely be restated. This amounts to an admission that those financial statements were materially false and misleading when issued. In a section entitled "Certain Relationships And Related Transactions", the Prospectus purported to detail all of the related party transactions concerning its business. The Prospectus, however, failed to disclose the related-party loan of $430 million to an entity controlled by the CEO. As a result of this news, the price of Refco common stock declined precipitously falling from $28.56 per share to $15.60 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. If you bought Refco, Inc. securities between August 11, 2005 and October 7, 2005, inclusive, and would like to obtain information about the Refco, Inc. lawsuit, then you are invited to call (866) 467-1400 to speak with an attorney. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Stocks Cases of Interest The parties have reached a proposed $5 million settlement in a class action against First Union National Bank on behalf of investors in Cyprus Funds, a company that ran a multimillion-dollar securities investment scheme. First Union was accused of aiding and abetting the fraud.
A class action has been filed in the Northern District Court of California against Tripath Technology, Inc., a California based technology company, (NASDAQ: TRPH) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company’s common stock between January 29, 2004 and October 22, 2004. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company’s securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. A class action has been filed against Viisage Technology, Inc. (NasdaqNM:VISG), certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between October 25, 2004 and March 02, 2005. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. Several class actions have been filed against Russian petroleum producer Yukos Oil Company (OTC BB:YUKOF.PK; OTC BB:YUKOY.PK; Russia:YUKO) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between February 13, 2003, and October 25, 2003. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that they were using questionable tax schemes to minimize corporate and business taxes owed to the Russian government over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. According to a press release dated April 11, 2008, the class action is brought against Oppenheimer Holdings Inc., Oppenheimer & Co. Inc, Oppenheimer Asset Management and Freedom Investments Inc. (collectively, "Oppenheimer"), in connection with the sale of auction rate securities, auction rate preferred stock, auction market preferred stock, variable rate preferred securities, money market preferred securities, periodic auction rate securities and auction rate bonds (collectively, "Auction Rate Securities").
Several class actions have been filed against agricultural manufacturer AGCO Corporation (NYSE: AG) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between February 6, 2003, and February 5, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
