The Complaint further alleges that defendants shocked the market between November 8, 2012, after the close of trading, and November 9, 2012, before the opening of trading, by disclosing that they had been grossly overstating the proportion of oil-producing versus natural gas producing assets in the Company’s Mississippian formation throughout the Class Period. Defendants also disclosed that they intended to sell the remaining interest in the Company’s Permerian Basin assets, though those assets were the Company’s highest-margin oil producing assets.On this news, SandRidge’s stock fell precipitously from its November 8, 2012 closing price of $6.10 per share to close at $5.51 per share on November 9, 2012, or 9%, on extremely high volume of more than six times the average daily trading volume over the prior three month period. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of SandRidge securities during the Class Period (the “Class”). Plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. The firm has obtained many of the largest recoveries and has been ranked number one in the number of shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI’s Top SCAS 50 every year since 2003. According to Cornerstone Research, the firm’s recoveries have averaged 35% above the median for all firms over the past seven years (2005-2011). Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com for more information.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”) ( http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/sandridge/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of SandRidge Energy, Inc. (“SandRidge” or the “Company”) (NYSE: SD) between February 24, 2011 and November 8, 2012 (the “Class Period”). 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 plaintiffs’ counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org. 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/sandridge/. 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 SandRidge and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. SandRidge, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an independent natural gas and oil company in the United States. The Company engages in the exploration, development, and production of oil and gas properties. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s operational status and financial projections. Specifically, according to the complaint, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: (a) that they had been overstating the value of SandRidge’s Mississippian formation assets throughout the Class Period as contrary to their repeated mantra that SandRidge had successfully transformed itself from a primarily natural gas to a primarily oil producing company, when in reality its Mississippian formation assets consisted of significantly higher low-margin natural gas deposits and significantly lower high-margin oil deposits than the market had previously been led to believe; (b) mechanical issues with one of three rigs the Company needed to drill in its new Gulf of Mexico assets acquired in the Dynamic Offshore Resources LLC acquisition in early 2012 rendered that rig inoperable during the second quarter of 2012, requiring that defendants ramp down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico; (c) that contrary to their Class Period statements, defendants intended that the $1.3 billion Dynamic Offshore acquisition be utilized as a “financing vehicle” for the Company’s onshore drilling projects; and (d) that as a result, defendants knew SandRidge’s fiscal year 2012 earnings guidance was not attainable.