China Zenix Auto International Limited
- Company Name
- China Zenix Auto International Limited
- Stock Symbol
- Class Period
- October 2, 2015 to June 14, 2018
- Motion Deadline
- December 30, 2018
- District of New Jersey
The complaint charges China Zenix and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. China Zenix designs, manufactures and sells commercial vehicle wheels to aftermarket and original equipment manufacturers.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding China Zenix’s compliance with the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) Continued Listed Requirements and its internal controls over financial reporting. Specifically, contrary to its public statements during the Class Period, including that the Company had “satisfied the NYSE’s continuing listing standard” and that its “internal control over financial reporting was effective,” in fact, China Zenix’s trading actions in connection with its compliance with NYSE Continued Listing Requirements were contrary to public policy, and China Zenix had inadequate internal control over financial reporting. As a result of this information being withheld from investors, China Zenix shares traded at artificially inflated prices of more than $2.00 per share.
Then on June 14, 2018, the NYSE suspended trading in China Zenix shares and commenced delisting proceedings against the Company. According the NYSE’s press release announcing the suspension, the “determination to delist the Company was based on an investigation conducted by NYSE Regulation that brought to light the existence of events that made further dealings or listing of the securities on the Exchange contrary to the public interest and not in keeping with sound public policy.” On this news, the price of China Zenix shares fell $0.11 per share, or over 13%, to close at $0.70 per share.
The next day, China Zenix issued a press release announcing its intent to appeal the delisting decision and stating that the decision was made “in relation to a review of the trading of the Company’s stock during certain periods in 2015 and 2016 when its stock price fell below the NYSE minimum price requirement.”