Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Navistar International Corporation
WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares of Navistar International Corporation (NYSE: NAV )?
- Did you purchase your shares before November 3, 2010, or between November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in Navistar International Corporation?
- Do you want to discuss your rights?
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Navistar International Corporation (“Navistar” or the “Company”) (NYSE: NAV) between November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of Navistar during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Navistar, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to email@example.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/navistar-international-corporation-nav.
Navistar is an international manufacturer of International® brand commercial and military trucks, IC Bus™ brand buses, MaxxForce® brand diesel engines, and recreational vehicles (“RV”) under the Monaco® RV family of brands, as well as a provider of service parts for all makes of trucks and trailers. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants concealed from the investing public that: (a) Navistar’s attempted methods to achieve compliance with United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) guidelines in truck manufacturing had failed and were not working, and Navistar would be forced to revise its plan to meet guidelines, incurring enormous costs to the Company; (b) Navistar did not have engines ready to meet the 2010 EPA standards; (c) Navistar’s filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) contained incomplete and misleading disclosures, including statements about the costs of recalls and details of various debts; and (d) based on the above, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its revenue outlook. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, prior to the Class Period, the EPA had imposed new regulations on 2010 model trucks that included strict emissions standards. The two primary engine technologies that emerged to meet the new standards were Exhaust Gas Recirculation (“EGR”) and Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”). Navistar chose the EGR technology, not the SCR technology its competitors were using to meet the new standards, and then represented that the new EGR technology was compliant and the vehicles were ready for sale. By the beginning of the Class Period, however, it was clear this product differentiation strategy was not working. Despite the $700 million Navistar had spent on developing its EGR engine, the Company had not even applied for certification of the EPA emissions standard by the start of the Class Period – 10 months after the EPA standards had become effective. Thus, by the beginning of the Class Period, Navistar faced technological, legal and liquidity issues which threatened its business. To conceal this fact from Navistar’s investors and customers, throughout the Class Period defendants repeatedly stated that Navistar had indeed achieved an engineering milestone and had an EPA-compliant EGR engine ready to be certified. As a result of defendants’ false statements, the price of Navistar common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $70.17 per share on April 26, 2011.
On July 2012, the Company admitted its failure to achieve an EPA-compliant EGR engine and announced that in order to remain in business it was adopting the same SCR technology its competitors were using. Then, on August 2, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing that it was withdrawing its full-year fiscal 2012 guidance until the release of its third quarter 2012 results in September. In addition, Navistar disclosed receiving a formal letter of inquiry from the SEC involving an investigation of various accounting and disclosure matters dating back to November 2010 by the SEC. On this news, shares in Navistar dropped over 13%, closing at $21.44 per share on August 2, 2012, from a close of $24.77 per share on August 1, 2012, on volume of over 7.5 million shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 20, 2013. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.
While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
KEYWORDS: United States North America Delaware