On August 4, 2011, Veolia announced its half year results, for the period ended June 30, 2011, reporting consolidated revenue of €16,286.7 million, and operating income of €252.2 million, compared to €1100.7 million in the prior year period, due to “non-recurring write-downs amounting to €686M (principally in Italy, Morocco and the United States).” The Company also stated that it would exit certain businesses and certain geographies, including its Transport business in Morocco, it Environmental Services business in Egypt, and its Marine Services business in the United States and in Southern Europe.In reaction to these announcements, the price of Veolia ADSs fell $4.66 per share, or over 22%, from a close of $20.76 per share on August 3, 2011 (prior to the announcement), to close at $16.10 per share, on August 4, 2011 (the day of the announcement) on heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 27, 2012. 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 Southern District of New York on behalf of the purchasers of the American Depository Shares (“ADSs”) of Veolia Environnement (“Veolia” or the “Company”) (NYSE: VE), during the period April 27, 2007 through August 4, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Complaint”). Click here to learn more: http://investigations.rigrodskylong.com/veolia-environnement-sa-ve/. The complaint charges Veolia and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Veolia, together with its subsidiaries, provides environmental management services to individuals, public authorities, and industrial and commercial services customers worldwide. The Complaint alleges, that throughout the Class Period, Veolia issued false and misleading financial statements that were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”). Specifically, it is alleged that the Company failed to timely record impairments to its goodwill and improperly overstated the operating results for its Marine Services business during the Class Period. Indeed, the Company admitted that its previous financial reports for fiscal years 2007-2010 were materially false and misleading and, because of fraud in its Marine Services business, overstated by at least €90 million. In addition, Veolia failed to timely record an impairment charge for its Transport business unit in Morocco, its Environmental Services business in Egypt, and its Marine Services business in the United States and in Southern Europe. Veolia’s revenues were also being hampered by the renewal of some of its major concession contracts. The foregoing shows that Veolia lacked adequate internal controls, and therefore defendants were unable to ascertain the Company’s true value, and that defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Veolia and its business prospects.