New Lawsuit Against RINO International Seeks Maximum Recovery For Investors, Says Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP filed a new class-action lawsuit on behalf of investors deceived by RINO International Corp. (NASDAQ:RINO) (Pink Sheets:RINO) (The Company) alleging RINO artificially inflated stock values by providing unreliable financial statements and fabricating customer relationships.

Investors who purchased RINO common stock between May 15, 2008, and November 19, 2010 (Class Period), and incurred losses greater than $100,000, are encouraged to contact Hagens Berman’s partner, Reed R. Kathrein, by phone at 510-725-3000 or by e-mail at [e-mail] for a consultation. Large investors who wish to serve as lead plaintiff must file a motion with the Court no later than January 14, 2011.

The new lawsuit, filed on December 10, 2010, charged RINO with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and came days after NASDAQ delisted RINO from the stock market. Hagens Berman is asking the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California to award a maximum settlement to investors who incurred losses after purchasing RINO common stock during the proposed Class Period.

Mr. Kathrein, one of the attorneys representing plaintiff Brenda Chau in the new lawsuit against RINO, has been investigating investor fraud claims against the Chinese-based environment equipment manufacturer. NASDAQ delisted RINO for the following reasons:

• The Company announced that its previously filed financial reports for fiscal year 2008, 2009 and year-to-date 2010 could no longer be relied upon;
• The Company admitted that it had not entered into certain previously disclosed contracts; and
• The Company failed to respond to the NASDAQ staff's request for additional information regarding allegations raised by the Muddy Waters, LLC, report.

Earlier this year, an independent research firm released information from China’s State Administration of Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) showing that the Company’s 2009 consolidated revenue was only $11.1 million, as opposed to the $192.6 million reported in the Company’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings.

1 2 Next › Last »