Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Hi-Crush Partners LP

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 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 securities of Hi-Crush Partners LP (“Hi-Crush” or the “Company”) (NYSE: HCLP) in or traceable to the Company’s August 16, 2012 initial public offering (the “IPO”), alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters in the IPO (the “Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of Hi-Crush in or traceable to the IPO 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 [phone], by e-mail to [e-mail], or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/hi-crush-partners-lp-hclp.

Hi-Crush, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a pure play, low-cost, domestic producer of premium monocrystalline sand, a specialized mineral that is used as a “proppant” to enhance the recovery rates of hydrocarbons from oil and natural gas wells. According to the Complaint, the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s IPO, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation as follows: (a) after executive the original supply contract with Hi-Crush in October 2011, beginning in February 2012, Baker Hughes Incorporated (“Baker Hughes”) began expressing an unwillingness to comply with that contract; (b) six months prior to the IPO, Baker Hughes had demanded significant volume and other concessions resulting in the execution of an amended supply contract; (c) according to Baker Hughes, Hi-Crush had, or was, violating confidentiality provisions in the supply contract; and (d) as a result, Baker Hughes would repudiate all of its financial obligations under the supply contract, materially decreasing Hi-Crush’s revenues and profits attributable to that important supply contract.

1 2 3 Next › Last »