On August 2, 2011, the Company announced its preliminary financial results for the second quarter of 2011, reporting that the Company was performing well below expectations and that AgFeed expected to post a loss of $17 million, as it added $5 million in allowances for its bad debt expenses. Additionally, on August 9, 2011, AgFeed disclosed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the true nature of its finances and the Company’s decision to withdraw the Registration Statement for its Animal Nutrition business.Subsequently, on September 29, 2011, AgFeed announced that its Board of Directors has established a special committee to investigate the accounting relating to certain of the Company’s Chinese farm assets (acquired during 2007 and 2008) used in its hog production business, as well as the validity and collectability of certain of the Company’s accounts receivables relating to its animal nutrition business in China and any other issues that may arise during the course of the investigation. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 17, 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 Complaint 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 a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the stock of AgFeed Industries, Inc. (“AgFeed” or the “Company”) (Nasdaq: FEED) between March 16, 2009 and August 2, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Complaint”). 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 at: http://investigations.rigrodskylong.com/agfeedindustriesinc-feed/. According to its website, AgFeed is an international agri-business with operations in the United State and China. Founded in 1995 with a focus on animal nutrition, today AgFeed is made up of three distinct operating units: Animal Nutrition, Hog Production and Harvesting. The Complaint names AgFeed and certain of the Company’s current and former executives and officers as defendants. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, AgFeed made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s financial health and in particular relating to its Animal Nutrition business. As a result, AgFeed’s stock price traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that officials at the Company failed to disclose to investors material adverse facts that: (1) AgFeed’s collection efforts and credit dealings with its animal nutrition customers were not working because the “formula based analysis” the Company relied upon in determining accounts receivable and reserves for doubtful accounts was flawed; (2) allowances for doubtful accounts were materially undervalued; (3) accounts were overvalued and bad debts were undervalued, causing reported asset values to be overstated and expenses to be understated; and (4) AgFeed exaggerated its market edge as the combination of overstated assets and understated expenses resulted in creating an illusion of heightened profitability and failed to provide a “long-term picture” of AgFeed’s value.