Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(“Robbins Geller”) (
) today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Magna International Inc. (“Magna”) (NYSE:MGA) common stock during the period between January 12, 2011 and August 5, 2011 (the “Class Period”).
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. 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
David A. Rosenfeld
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
. 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
. 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 Magna and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Magna is a one of the largest and most diversified suppliers of automotive components, systems and modules world-wide. Magna maintains manufacturing and engineering and sales operations in 26 countries around the globe.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i) that the Company had entered into long-term European customer contracts at steeply discounted prices; (ii) that the Company was experiencing ongoing undisclosed quality control issues at its European facilities that were resulting in higher production costs; (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, Magna was experiencing a significant decline in its European margins; (iv) that defendants’ representations about the Company’s disclosure controls were materially false and misleading; and (v) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company’s European operations and business prospects during the Class Period.