Rigrodsky & long, p.a. announces a securities fraud class action
lawsuit has been filed against autoliv, inc.
Wilmington, del.--(business wire)--rigrodsky & long, p.a.: do you, or did you, own shares of autoliv, inc. (nyse: alv)? did you purchase your shares before october 26, 2010, or between october 26, 2010 and august 1, 2011, inclusive? did you lose money in your investment in autoliv, inc.? do you want to discuss your rights? rigrodsky & long, p.a., including former special assistant united states attorney, timothy j. macfall, announces that a complaint has been filed in the united states district court for the southern district of new york on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of autoliv, inc. (“autoliv” or the “company”) (nyse: alv) between october 26, 2010 and august 1, 2011, 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 autoliv during the class period, or purchased shares prior to the class period and still hold autoliv, 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 info@rigrodskylong.com, or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/autoliv-inc-alv. autoliv develops, markets and manufactures automotive safety products, including airbags, seatbelts, safety electronics, steering wheels, anti-whiplash systems, seat components and integrated child seats as well as active safety systems such as night vision, vision and radar systems. 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: (a) that the company had colluded with other automotive supply companies dating back to 2009 to engage in wrongful antitrust practices over an extended time; (b) that the company’s known, but undisclosed, anti-competitive practices had artificially inflated its reported gross margins and earnings for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and for the first interim reporting period of fiscal 2011; (c) that the company’s known, but undisclosed, antitrust practices subjected the company to material undisclosed risks, including monetary and reputational risks, that are of particular significance to autoliv since it is dependent on a relatively small number of customers and any harm to its reputation and/or relationships with such customers would adversely affect its future revenues and growth prospects; (d) that the company violated accounting standards associated with the disclosure and accounting for gross margins, earnings and loss contingencies; (e) that the company’s financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (“gaap”) and were materially false and misleading; (f) that certifications issued by defendants jan carlson and mats wallin associated with the company’s internal and disclosure controls were materially false and misleading; and (g) that, based of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the company, its current business and future financial prospects. 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, by february 2011, the united states department of justice (“doj”) began investigating autoliv’s anti-competitive practices and potential antitrust violations. between the 7th and 9th of june 2011, the antitrust authorities of the european commission (the “ec”) also raided autoliv’s german subsidiary seeking evidence of autoliv’s anti-competitive misconduct. during the company’s july 25, 2011 second quarter 2011 earnings conference, autoliv disclosed that it had already spent upwards of $4 million of legal fees and could no longer predict what impact the antitrust investigations would have on its previously reported and future gross margins and earnings. on this news, shares of autoliv, which traded as high as $83.86 during the class period, plummeted below $62 by august 2, 2011. then, on june 6, 2012, the doj announced that autoliv had agreed to plead guilty to price fixing of automobile parts installed in u.s. cars and to pay a $14.5 million criminal fine. in doing so, autoliv admitted to its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of seatbelts, airbags and steering wheels installed in u.s. cars to one automobile manufacturer and a separate conspiracy to fix prices of seatbelts to another car manufacturer. furthermore, autoliv was named as a defendant in twelve antitrust class actions filed in the u.s. and canada. according to one analyst, autoliv now faces upwards of $700 million in potential criminal fines and penalties, civil liability to antitrust and securities regulators around the world, and judgments in private lawsuits. if you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court no later than june 17, 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.
