Securities Litigation - Written by Beasley Allen on Monday, November 5, 2012 11:30 - 0 Comments
Sonoco Products Company, founded in 1899, is based in Hartsville, S.C. Sonoco is a global manufacturer of industrial and consumer packaging products and provider of packaging services. From 2001 – 2006, Sonoco enjoyed increasing prices across all customers in its flexible packaging division. In mid-2006, however, several of Sonoco’s largest customers put out bids on their flexible packaging business and Sonoco was ultimately required to dramatically lower its pricing to retain this business and one of its customers actually took its flexible packaging business elsewhere. As a result, both volume and profits derived from this division of Sonoco were significantly lower in 2007. While Sonoco issued several press releases touting price increases on certain of its markets and customers in late 2006 and early 2007, Sonoco issued no press release announcing price concessions or the loss of a major customer during the same period of time.
On February 7, 2007, Sonoco issued a press release announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter and year end of 2006 as well as its first quarter outlook for 2007. In the press release, Sonoco credited “higher selling prices” in the Consumer Packaging segment for its success and did not disclose to the market the loss of a major customer or significant price concessions. On April 20, 2007, Sonoco issued another press release announcing first quarter 2007 earnings and stated the company was “pleased to be able to recover much of the materials and other cost increases experienced during the quarter through higher selling prices.” As a result of this public statement, Sonoco’s stock price jumped to $43.04 per share, up $3.31 from the prior day’s close. On May 1, 2007, Sonoco filed its Form 10-Q with the SEC stating its quarterly report for the first quarter of 2007. The 10-Q filed by Sonoco failed to disclose the significant price concessions or the loss of a major customer by Sonoco, or the negative impact these events were having on Sonoco’s bottom line.
Finally, on July 20, 2007, Sonoco issued a press release with its second quarter earnings and, for the first time, revealed and disclosed “price reductions in certain flexible packaging without offsetting reductions in costs”. On this same date, Sonoco’s stock price declined 14.22% from $44.30 per share at close on July 19, 2007 to $38.00 at the close on July 20, 2007.
The City of Ann Arbor Employment Retirement System filed suit on June 26, 2008 seeking to represent all those persons or entities who had purchased or acquired Sonoco common stock during the class period. City of Ann Arbor asserted the failure by Sonoco and its executives to disclose or reveal the price concessions and loss of a major customer in its flexible packaging division was a material omission or concealment in violation of the federal securities laws. Sonoco and its executives denied the allegation and asserted the price concessions and loss of a major customer were not material to the overall companywide financial performance and projections and therefore had no duty to disclose them. The company also claimed that because it met its earnings guidance or projection during the time period in question it should not be liable for securities fraud.
On September 30, 2010, Judge Terry L. Wooten of the USDC for the District of South Carolina certified a class of all those persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Sonoco common stock between February 7, 2007 and September 18, 2007. On September 22, 2011, Judge Wooten denied Sonoco’s motion for summary judgment as well as the party’s respective motions to exclude expert witness opinions and testimony. With the case ready to proceed to trial, the parties reached a settlement agreement in the amount of $13 million at mediation in April 2012. At a hearing on September 4th, Judge Wooten approved the settlement agreement and awarded Plaintiffs’ counsel $4 million in attorney’s fees. Jack Reise and Mike Greenwald of Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd were Lead Counsel for the Plaintiff. Bill Hopkins from our firm served as Liaison Counsel for the Plaintiff. They did a very good job in this case.
If you, or someone you know, has been deceived and bought stock based upon a material misrepresentation or concealment of material facts relating to a company, contact Bill Hopkins, who is our firm’s Consumer Fraud Section, at 800-898-2034 or by email at Bill.Hopkins@beasleyallen.com.
Leave a Reply
- Favorite Bible Verses
- U.S. Bank Settles Suit Over Force-Placed Flood Insurance
- More Info on the Xarelto Litigation
- BP Is Trying To Keep A Jury From Hearing Alabama's Case
- An Update on the State of Alabama's Case Against BP
- Regions Fined $7.5 Million For Breaking Overdraft Rules And Will Refund $49 Million To Customers
- Parting Words
- Our Monthly Reminders
- The Country Lost A True Public Servant When Beau Biden Died At Age 46
- Sean Kane Keeps A Watchful Eye On Hazardous Products
- Public Citizen Works For People
- Beasley Allen Lawyer Ali Hawthorne Talks to WAKA TV About Tire Safety
- Mary Smitherman
- Larry Golston
- Dana Taunton
- Bunnies By The Bay Recalls Pull Toys Due To Choking Hazard
- Walgreens Vitamins Recalled By International Vitamin
- What a joke, we have just stated on the 1f journey. LG is a very poor excuse for...
- I found it very useful. My Mother passed last year with a very similar story.
- Just dropped my 04 off this morning for the 4th failed window regulator since I ...
- There once was an institution called the usbank.
I am a disabled vet and soon t...
- The big bad us bank or should I say the ssbank did this flood insurance thing to...
- Hi Mark,
That is scary about your tire separation. We are thankful nobody was...
- I just had a G159 245 70r19.5 on a 35ft Class A Motor Home fail due to tread sep...
- 2005 F150 4 door. I have replaced every window motor once and the two front ones...
Recent Settlements - Feb 9, 2012 7:09 - 0 Comments
More In Recent Settlements
- A Further Update On The AWP Litigation
- Firm Reaches Settlement In Fort McClellan Radio Tower Collapse Case
- Firm Reaches Settlement In Sikorsky Helicopter Crash
- The Philadelphia Story
- St. Croix, Virgin Islands Settlement
Product Liability - Jul 13, 2015 10:10 - 0 Comments
More In Product Liability
- Chrysler Recall Ends Defective Power System Litigation
- Honda Civic Drivers Get Brake Repairs Covered In Settlement
- Ford Agrees To Settle Class Claims Over Spark Plug Defect
- Jeep Grand Cherokees Can Brake For No Reason
- Acura Recall Shows Problems In Automatic Braking System
Recalls Update - Jul 22, 2015 14:46 - 0 Comments
More In Recalls Update
- Walgreens Vitamins Recalled By International Vitamin
- Positec Tool Recalls Worx Brand Blower/Vacs Due To Shock Hazard
- Ramart Recalls Swing Chairs Due To Fall Hazard
- Pali Design Recalls Children’s Furniture
- Top Fin Plastic Aquarium Heaters Recalled By PetSmart