stock & financial message boards
  Joined Today: 1

  Login  |  Registration |  Site Map  |  Stock Market Blogs reaching thousands of users every day  |  Recent Activity  |    |

« Previous | Next » | All Messages |  FRPT Message Board Home | recommend post |  Ignore Poster

Message #201
From: The Machine
Date: March 12, 2008 06:43:28 AM

Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Files Class Action Suit Against Force Protection, Inc.


Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (“Coughlin Stoia”) (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/forceprotection/) today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of purchasers of Force Protection, Inc. (“Force Protection”) (NASDAQ:FRPT) common stock during the period between August 14, 2006 and February 29, 2008 (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 plaintiff’s counsel, Darren Robbins of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.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.csgrr.com/cases/forceprotection/. Any member of the purported 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 Force Protection and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Force Protection and its subsidiaries engage in the manufacture of ballistic and blast protected vehicles.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, financial results and prospects. Specifically, defendants continually boasted Force Protection’s dominance in the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (“MRAP”) market was due to its superior product design and rapid delivery rates. However, in a report dated June 27, 2007, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense questioned both of these claims and criticized the awarding of contracts to Force Protection on a sole source basis and without competitive bidding. Then, on February 29, 2008, after the market closed, Force Protection announced it would have to delay the release of its 2007 Form 10-K and restate its Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007. On this news, Force Protection’s stock collapsed to close at $3.58 per share on March 3, 2008, a one-day decline of 13% and an 88% decline from the Class Period high of $30.27 per share, prior to when Force Protection’s problems began to be revealed.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) as a result of the Company’s ongoing problems in meeting contractual delivery deadlines, the Company would have trouble competing in the MRAP market; (b) in audit reports, the Defense Contract Audit Agency had been critical of the Company’s finances and financial accounting system, which threatened the Company’s eligibility to compete for government contracts; (c) the Company’s accounting department suffered from material weaknesses and deficiencies and lacked the necessary staff and resources to perform its required functions; (d) contrary to the representations contained in the Company’s SEC filings, the Company’s internal controls were inadequate and easily manipulated; (e) the Company lacked effective internal controls in its financial reporting process, required to enable it to properly analyze and/or estimate Force Protection’s future financial and operational performance; and (f) defendants had caused the Company to falsely report at least its third quarter 2007 financial results.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Force Protection common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”). The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

Coughlin Stoia, a 190-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, 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 Coughlin Stoia Web site (http://www.csgrr.com) has more information about the firm.

Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
Darren Robbins, 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
djr@csgrr.com


Source: Business Wire (March 10, 2008 - 4:06 PM EDT)

News by QuoteMedia
www.quotemedia.com

« Previous | Next » | All Messages |  FRPT Message Board Home | Ignore Poster