WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the securities of Hi-Crush Partners LP (“Hi-Crush” or the “Company”) (NYSE: HCLP) in or traceable to the Company’s August 16, 2012 initial public offering (the “IPO”), alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters in the IPO (the “Complaint”).
If you purchased shares of Hi-Crush in or traceable to the IPO 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/hi-crush-partners-lp-hclp.
Hi-Crush, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a pure play, low-cost, domestic producer of premium monocrystalline sand, a specialized mineral that is used as a “proppant” to enhance the recovery rates of hydrocarbons from oil and natural gas wells. According to the Complaint, the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company’s IPO, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing its preparation as follows: (a) after executive the original supply contract with Hi-Crush in October 2011, beginning in February 2012, Baker Hughes Incorporated (“Baker Hughes”) began expressing an unwillingness to comply with that contract; (b) six months prior to the IPO, Baker Hughes had demanded significant volume and other concessions resulting in the execution of an amended supply contract; (c) according to Baker Hughes, Hi-Crush had, or was, violating confidentiality provisions in the supply contract; and (d) as a result, Baker Hughes would repudiate all of its financial obligations under the supply contract, materially decreasing Hi-Crush’s revenues and profits attributable to that important supply contract.
According to the Registration Statement, almost all of Hi-Crush’s frac sand was being sold to four “leading investment grade-rated pressure pumping service providers under long-term, take-or-pay contracts that require [its] customers to pay a specified price for a specified volume of frac sand each month.” Emphasizing the strength of those customer relationships, the Registration Statement highlighted one of the four customers, Baker Hughes, as being a particularly important revenue source.
However, on November 13, 2012, Hi-Crush filed a Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announcing that the Company had formally terminated its supply agreement with Baker Hughes. The 8-K goes on to describe that Baker Hughes provided notice back on September 19, 2012 of their intention to terminate the contract and that both parties were unable to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter. On this news, shares in Hi-Crush plummeted 26%, closing at $15.00 per share on November 13, 2012, from a close of $20.35 per share on November 12, 2012, on volume of over 3.3 million shares.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 21, 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.
While Rigrodsky & 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 States.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.