Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/advancedbattery/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. (“ABAT” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:ABAT) between November 24, 2008 and March 30, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 31, 2011. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/advancedbattery/. Any member of the putative 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.
The complaint charges ABAT and certain of its officers and executives with violations of the Exchange Act. ABAT, through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, manufacture, and marketing of rechargeable polymer lithium-ion (PLI) batteries in the United States, Europe, and Asia.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges: (i) that the Company had failed to maintain proper internal controls; (ii) that ABAT’s claimed distribution relationships with certain manufacturers of electric motorcycles and scooters reported to investors appeared to be false; (iii) that the Company reported financial statements that were grossly inflated by including gross profit margins which were unrealistic for similar companies in its industry; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.