Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.
Attention investors who purchased shares of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. between February 26, 2016 and November 20, 2019:
Rigrodsky & Long is investigating claims brought in a securities fraud class action complaint against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. ("Fiat") concerning whether Fiat and certain of the Company's directors and/or officers made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose materially adverse facts during the period February 26, 2016 and November 20, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), concerning Fiat's business, operations and prospects. These misrepresentations and omissions artificially inflated the price of Fiat's stock throughout the Class Period.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. (“Fiat” or the “Company”) (NYSE: FCAU) between February 26, 2016 and November 20, 2019, 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 Fiat during the Class Period and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D. Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.
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: (1) Fiat employed a bribery scheme to obtain favorable terms in its collective bargaining agreement with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“UAW”); (2) high-ranking Fiat officials were aware of and authorized the scheme; and (3) due to the foregoing, defendants' statements about Fiat's receivables, business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. As a result of defendants’ alleged false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
According to the Complaint, on November 20, 2019, while the market was open, General Motors (“GM”) filed a racketeering lawsuit against the Company in the Eastern District of Michigan styled as General Motors LLC, et al. v. FCA US LLC et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-13429-PDB-DRG, for damages caused by a bribery scheme perpetuated by UAW and the Company. According to the lawsuit, the illegal activity was authorized by the high-level officers of the Company, including Defendant Marchionne, and helped the Company win union acceptance of cost concessions in 2011 and 2015. The lawsuit also contended that Fiat executives bribed UAW leaders to pressure GM into a merger with Fiat.
On this news, shares of Fiat fell over 3%, closing at $15.00 per share on November 20, 2019, on heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 31, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. 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.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Delaware, New York, and California, has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of investors and achieved substantial corporate governance reforms in numerous cases nationwide, including federal securities fraud actions, shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.