- Legal News Updates
- Law Center
- Legal Business
- Court News Center
- Law Firm News
- Legal Interviews
- Headline News
- Political and Legal
- Practice Focuses
- Legal Spotlight
- Events & Seminars
- Legal Marketing
- Court Watch
- Immigration Law
- Media Center
- Justice Stories
- Supreme Court blocks some redrawn North Carolina districts
- Court allows Pennsylvania to redraw GOP-favored district map
- Court rules that Kushner firm must disclose partners' names
- Court rules Puigdemont must return to Spain for re-election
- Analysis: Outside groups may factor in Arkansas court race
- Pennsylvania GOP take gerrymandering case to US high court
- Top Pakistani court orders arrest of escaped police officer
- Malaysia's top court annuls unilateral conversions of minors
- Officials ask court to send Kennedy cousin back to prison
- Travel ban is headed back to a federal appeals court in Virginia
The Complaint charges SinoTech, certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. SinoTech provides enhanced oil recovery services to oil companies in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that certain representations made in the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially inaccurate. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company’s reported sales and revenues were materially inaccurate, because the nature, size and scope of the Company’s business was materially exaggerated.
On August 16, 2011, a research report was published on the Internet questioning SinoTech’s previously issued financial statements and future prospects. The report alleged that: (1) SinoTech’s sole import agent, accounting for over $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, appears to be an empty shell company with no sign of operation, a limited import history and negligible revenue base; (2) the Company’s only chemical supplier is an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company’s five largest subcontracting customers, which provide the vast majority of SinoTech’s revenues, appear to be shell companies with unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in the United States are inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; and (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions.
On this news, ADSs of SinoTech declined more than 40%, to close on August 16, 2011, at $2.35 per share. Thereafter, NASDAQ halted trading of the Company’s stock.
No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased ADSs of SinoTech between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, you have certain rights, and have until October 18, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, by email to email@example.com or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.
Legal News Media
Legal News Organization press is the top headline legal news provider for lawyers and legalprofessionals. Read law articles and breaking news from law firm's across the United States to get the latest updates. The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Legal News Media as a service to the internet
community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.