WILMINGTON, Del. -- (Business Wire)
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:
- Do you, or did you, own shares of Navistar International
Corporation (NYSE: NAV)?
- Did you purchase your shares before November 3, 2010, or between
November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012, inclusive?
- Did you lose money in your investment in Navistar International
- Do you want to discuss your rights?
& Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of
Navistar International Corporation (“Navistar” or the “Company”) (NYSE: NAV)
between November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012, inclusive (the “Class
Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of Navistar during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Navistar, and
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy
J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825
East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by
e-mail to email@example.com,
or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/navistar-international-corporation-nav.
Navistar is an international manufacturer of International® brand
commercial and military trucks, IC Bus™ brand buses, MaxxForce® brand
diesel engines, and recreational vehicles (“RV”) under the Monaco® RV
family of brands, as well as a provider of service parts for all makes
of trucks and trailers. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and
omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business,
operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed from the investing public that: (a) Navistar’s
attempted methods to achieve compliance with United States Environmental
Protection Agency (“EPA”) guidelines in truck manufacturing had failed
and were not working, and Navistar would be forced to revise its plan to
meet guidelines, incurring enormous costs to the Company; (b) Navistar
did not have engines ready to meet the 2010 EPA standards; (c)
Navistar’s filings with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (“SEC”) contained incomplete and misleading disclosures,
including statements about the costs of recalls and details of various
debts; and (d) based on the above, defendants lacked a reasonable basis
for their positive statements about the Company and its revenue outlook.
As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the
Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
According to the Complaint, prior to the Class Period, the EPA had
imposed new regulations on 2010 model trucks that included strict
emissions standards. The two primary engine technologies that emerged to
meet the new standards were Exhaust Gas Recirculation (“EGR”) and
Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”). Navistar chose the EGR
technology, not the SCR technology its competitors were using to meet
the new standards, and then represented that the new EGR technology was
compliant and the vehicles were ready for sale. By the beginning of the
Class Period, however, it was clear this product differentiation
strategy was not working. Despite the $700 million Navistar had spent on
developing its EGR engine, the Company had not even applied for
certification of the EPA emissions standard by the start of the Class
Period – 10 months after the EPA standards had become effective. Thus,
by the beginning of the Class Period, Navistar faced technological,
legal and liquidity issues which threatened its business. To conceal
this fact from Navistar’s investors and customers, throughout the Class
Period defendants repeatedly stated that Navistar had indeed achieved an
engineering milestone and had an EPA-compliant EGR engine ready to be
certified. As a result of defendants’ false statements, the price of
Navistar common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $70.17 per share on April 26, 2011.
On July 2012, the Company admitted its failure to achieve an
EPA-compliant EGR engine and announced that in order to remain in
business it was adopting the same SCR technology its competitors were
using. Then, on August 2, 2012, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it was withdrawing its full-year fiscal 2012 guidance
until the release of its third quarter 2012 results in September. In
addition, Navistar disclosed receiving a formal letter of inquiry from
the SEC involving an investigation of various accounting and disclosure
matters dating back to November 2010 by the SEC. On this news, shares in
Navistar dropped over 13%, closing at $21.44 per share on August 2,
2012, from a close of $24.77 per share on August 1, 2012, on volume of
over 7.5 million shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than May 20, 2013. 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.
& 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
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire
Source: Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
© 2016 Canjex Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.