Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces Class Action Lawsuits Against Weatherford International, Ltd.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the stock of Weatherford International, Ltd. (“Weatherford” or the “Company”) (NYSE: WFT) between April 25, 2007 and March 1, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Complaints”).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R. Wortman, Case Development Director of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at [phone], by e-mail to [e-mail], or via our website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/WeatherfordInternationalLtd.

The Complaints name Weatherford and certain of the Company’s current executive officers and directors as defendants. Weatherford provides equipment and services used in the drilling, evaluation, completion, production, and intervention of oil and natural gas wells to independent oil and natural gas producing companies worldwide.

The Complaints allege that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company had improperly accounted for income taxes relating to intercompany amounts and foreign tax assets; (2) that, as a result, the Company’s financial results were materially misstated during the Class Period; (3) that the Company’s financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (“GAAP”); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the above, the Company’s financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

1 2 3 Next › Last »