Weatherford International Ltd.

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

Weatherford International Ltd. Securities Settlement

The lawsuit was settled for $52.5 million in cash on January 28, 2014. The following is a summary of the proceedings in this lawsuit: ‘Beginning on March 9, 2011, a class action was filed in this Court, alleging violations of the federal securities laws and captioned as follows: Dobina v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al. (the Original Complaint). By Order dated June 27, 2011, the Court consolidated the foregoing action and any related cases under the caption In re Weatherford Int Sec. Litig., Case No. 11 Civ. 1646 (LAK) (JCF). By the same Order, the Court appointed AFME as Lead Plaintiff and the law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Kessler Topaz) as Lead Counsel. On August 26, 2011, Lead Plaintiff filed the operative complaint in the Action, the Amended Class Action Complaint (the Amended Complaint), asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Defendants. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that during the relevant time period, Defendants misled investors about the effectiveness of Weatherford internal controls over accounting and financial reporting for income taxes. On March 1, 2011, Weatherford announced that it would restate its publicly-reported financial results for 2007, 2008 and 2009, and the first three quarters of 2010, and that the Company financial results for those periods should no longer be relied on. Weatherford also announced that it had determined that it had identified a material weakness in its internal controls over financial reporting for income taxes. On September 30, 2011, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Following full briefing and oral argument on Defendants motions, the Court, on November 7, 2012, granted in part and denied in part Defendants motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On April 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify this Action as a class action, for certification of Plaintiffs as class representatives and for appointment of Kessler Topaz as class counsel. At the time the Settlement was reached, the Court had yet to rule upon the class certification motion. On August 26, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend and attached a Proposed Amended Complaint, and on September 26, 2013, Plaintiffs sent the Court a revised Proposed Amended Complaint (the Proposed Amended Complaints, together with the Original Complaint and Amended Complaint, are the Complaints). During the course of the Action, the Settling Parties have conducted extensive discovery, including Plaintiffs review of over 2.3 million pages of documents produced by Defendants and third parties and participation in 14 depositions. In addition, the Settling Parties, through their counsel, had several in-person and telephonic settlement discussions, mediations and arm-length negotiations with the assistance of an experienced mediator, before reaching an agreement-in-principle to settle the Action.’

© copyright 2015, Liquid Claims. All Rights Reserved.