On January 16, 2012, Kinross issued a press release announcing its preliminary 2011 results and 2012 outlook. The press release noted that the Company’s three major growth projects at Tasiast, Fruta del Norte and Lobo-Marte would require significant capital expenditures and that as a result of the Company’s increased understanding of the Tasiast orebody, Kinross had elected to conduct a comprehensive capital and project optimization process to efficiently advance development of the project and generate enhanced returns on capital. The press release also disclosed that “[i]n view of the Company’s evolving understanding of Tasiast project parameters, and market conditions, including industry-wide increases in capital and operating costs, the Company expects to record a material non-cash accounting charge, primarily relating to the goodwill recorded for the Tasiast mine,” which totaled $4.6 billion at September 30, 2011. In response to the Company’s announcement, the price of Kinross common stock plummeted nearly 19%, from $12.65 per share on January 13, 2012 to $10.27 on January 17, 2012.Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Kinross common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims of human rights violations. The Robbins Geller Web site ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com) has more information about the firm.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/kinross/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Kinross Gold Corporation (“Kinross”) (NYSE:KGC) common stock during the period between February 16, 2011 and January 17, 2012, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff’s counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at email@example.com. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/kinross/. Any member of the putative 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. The complaint charges Kinross and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, engages in mining and processing of gold ores. The Company’s gold production and exploration activities are carried out principally in the Americas, Africa and the Russian Federation. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statement regarding the Company’s business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (a) that the drilling results at the Kinross Tasiast property had exhibited high amounts of low-grade ores and that because of this the Company would need to modify its mining processes to help minimize operating costs and maximize profitability; (b) that, as a result of the foregoing circumstances, applicable accounting standards required the Company to record an impairment in the value of goodwill that Kinross attributed to the Tasiast property; (c) that the Company’s financial statements were not fairly presented in conformity with International Financial Reporting Standards and were materially false and misleading; and (d) that, based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its business prospects and the Tasiast property during the Class Period.