Bernstein Liebhard LLP today announced that a lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the “Class”) of investors who purchased China Automotive Systems, Inc. (“China Automotive” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: CAAS) shares between the period of March 20, 2010 and March 17, 2011 (the “Class Period”). Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against China Automotive and several of its officers and directors. The Complaint charges that China Automotive and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following: (1) the Company improperly accounted for its convertible notes issued on February 15, 2008; (2) that, as a result, the Company’s financial results were incorrectly stated during the Class Period; (3) that the Company’s financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“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. Shares of China Automotive dropped from a close of $10.23 per share on March 16, 2011 to a closing price of $8.81 per share On March 17, 2011 on news it expected to restate its financials. On March 17, 2011, the Company’s audit committee of the board of directors stated it would delay the Company’s annual financial statement and would need to restate all previously issued financial statements for the fiscal year 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010, and that these financial statements should no longer be relied upon. On March 18, 2011, the Company announced that it received a letter from NASDAQ stating that the Company was no longer in compliance with NASDAQ Marketplace rules.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired China Automotive shares during the Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired China Automotive shares during the Class Period, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than December 26, 2011.A “lead plaintiff” is a representative party that acts 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. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. If you are interested in discussing your rights as a China Automotive shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or email@example.com. Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered almost $3 billion for its clients. It has been named to The National Law Journal’s “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” in each of the last nine years. You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Bernstein Liebhard LLP10 East 40th StreetNew York, New York 10016(877) 779-1414 www.bernlieb.com ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2011 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Mary U. Hoover. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.