China Green Securities Settlement
A fertilizer company recently announced that it reached a securities class action settlement with shareholders and the action was approved by the court.
China Green Agriculture, Inc. noted that the lawsuit’s settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the State of Nevada. This awarded shareholders approximately $2.5 million, and resolves all outstanding lawsuits related to federal securities lawsuits, dismissing these actions. The company’s insurer paid for the entirety of the settlement to shareholders.
“After the settlement of the derivative actions against the company on April 5, 2012, the class action was the only lawsuit still pending said Tao Li, chairman and CEO of China Green Agriculture. We are pleased that it, too, now comes to an end. The settlement is a significant step forward for us and helps us advance our goals of focusing on building our business and to maximizing shareholder value.”
The company works with the production and distribution of multiple styles of fertilizer, and had 125 different types as of the halfway point of 2014.
Lawsuit filed in 2010
A law office filed the securities class action lawsuit against China Green Agriculture in 2010 due to allegations of federal securities law violations.
Law firm Rigrodsky and Long, P.A., noted that the litigation was filed in the same court, and included all shareholders who acquired securities from the company during the class period between Nov. 12, 2009 and Sept. 1, 2010.
The allegations in the case centered around the company’s leaders potentially violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This was due to the company disseminating statements about the company’s performance that may have been false or misleading. A number of analysts raised issues with these statements, as well as groups such as the International Financial Research and Analysis Group.
Issues also surfaced related to China Green Agriculture’s financial statements for the fiscal year in 2010. The lawsuit noted that the statements the company made with the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding these financial matters were either false or misleading. This was partially due to the company filing separate reports in the United States and China for the same period that had different figures.
The law office did not make the filing, but it did make itself available to shareholders to discuss the case and answer questions about the process. This included the lawsuit itself, and the lead plaintiff position.