The law firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of RINO International Corporation (“RINO” or the “Company”) (Pink Sheets: RINO.PK) between May 15, 2008 through November 19, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) (the “Complaint”). The case is styled as Chau v. RINO International Corporation, et al., No. CV10-09517-RGK (PJWx) (C.D. Cal.). Click here to learn more and view a copy of the Complaint: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/RINOInternationalCorp-RINO. The Complaint names RINO and certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors as defendants. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and/or omitted material facts. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, the Company represented that it was experiencing steady financial growth due, in large part, to the success of its Flue Gas Desulphurization equipment (“FGD”) sales. However, unbeknownst to the market, while RINO was reporting increasingly favorable financial results driven by its FGD business, certain of its reported contracts were, in fact, non-existent and, therefore, the Company’s publicly reported financial statements materially inaccurate. The truth began to emerge on November 10, 2010 when Muddy Waters, LLC (“MW”) issued a research report about, and a “Strong Sell” recommendation for, the Company. In that report, MW states, among other things, that RINO had fabricated the existence of at least five of the nine customer contracts for FGD equipment reported in the Company’s public filings. Moreover, MW reported that filings with the People’s Republic of China’s State Administration of Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”) showed that the Company’s 2009 consolidated revenue was only $11.1 million, as opposed to the $192.6 million reported in the Company’s SEC filings.
The price of the Company’s stock fell approximately 28% on the publication of the MW report. On November 15, 2010, RINO announced disappointing third quarter 2010 financial results and the Company’s stock continued its precipitous decline. The next day, on November 16, 2010, the Company postponed a previously scheduled earnings conference call and its stock continued to drop. At midday on November 17, 2010, trading in RINO stock was suspended. It was subsequently reported that trading was suspended at the request of the Company based on advice of its counsel.On November 19, 2010, RINO filed a Form 8-K with the SEC in which it acknowledged that certain of the allegations made by MW were accurate, and that the Company had, in fact, fabricated the existence of at least two contractual relationships. The Company has since announced that investors should not rely on its annual financial reports for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009, quarterly reports for the periods ended March 31, 2008 to September 30, 2009, and quarterly reports for the periods March 31, 2010 to September 30, 2010 inasmuch as they incorporate results from 2008 and 2009. The SEC has also begun a formal investigation into the Company’s financial reporting and compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Furthermore, the NASDAQ delisted RINO’s stock on or about December 8, 2010. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 14, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. 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 (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to email@example.com, or via our website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/RINOInternationalCorp-RINO. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed 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.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States.Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.