On March 1, 2011, Weatherford disclosed that its previously issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2008 and 2009 and for the quarterly periods ended March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2010, should no longer be relied upon due to material errors in the Company’s accounting for income taxes. Further, the Company announced that Weatherford intended to restate its previously issued financial results for those periods. Moreover, the Company informed investors that it estimated that the restatement would reduce its previously reported net income by approximately $500 million, consisting of $460 million in errors relating to intercompany amounts and another $40 million of errors relating to foreign tax assets.On this news, shares of Weatherford declined $2.38 per share, 10.92%, to close on March 2, 2011, at $21.14 per share, on unusually heavy volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 9, 2011. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. 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. While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaints in this matter, the firm, 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.
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 (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, 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.