Autoliv Inc.

Warning: Illegal string offset 'class' in /homepages/43/d258393870/htdocs/liquidclaims/wp-content/themes/min/Minimal/epanel/custom_functions.php on line 61

Warning: Illegal string offset 'alt' in /homepages/43/d258393870/htdocs/liquidclaims/wp-content/themes/min/Minimal/epanel/custom_functions.php on line 62

Warning: Illegal string offset 'title' in /homepages/43/d258393870/htdocs/liquidclaims/wp-content/themes/min/Minimal/epanel/custom_functions.php on line 63

Autoliv Inc. Securities Settlement

The lawsuit was settled for $22.5 million in cash. The following is a summary of the proceedings in this lawsuit: ‘On April 17, 2013, a putative class action alleging violations of federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, referenced herein as the Action. The Court has appointed the law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP as Lead Counsel. The Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the Complaint) filed in the Action on October 21, 2013 against Defendants Autoliv, Jan Carlson, Mats Wallin, and Takayoshi Matsunaga generally alleges, among other things, that Autoliv was engaged in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the automotive safety industry. Lead Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants failed to disclose this anti-competitive scheme and instead represented, among other things, that the Company complied with antitrust and fair competition laws. The Complaint asserts that these allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions artificially inflated the price of Autoliv common stock. The Complaint further alleges that Class Members purchased Autoliv common stock during the Class Period at prices artificially inflated as a result of the Defendants dissemination of materially false and misleading statements. The Complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On December 20, 2013, Defendants Autoliv, Carlson, and Wallin filed their motion to dismiss the Action, arguing that the Complaint failed to state a claim for relief. Defendant Matsunaga filed a separate motion to dismiss on January 27, 2014. Lead Plaintiffs filed their omnibus opposition on February 26, 2014 and Defendants filed their replies on April 14, 2014. The motions to dismiss were pending when the parties agreed to settle the Action.’

© copyright 2015, Liquid Claims. All Rights Reserved.