Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Announces Class Action

Class Action News

Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the American Depositary Shares of SinoTech Energy Limited (“SinoTech” or the “Company”) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company’s Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with the Company’s initial public offering commencing November 3, 2010, including purchasers of SinoTech ADSs between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at 310-201-9150 or Toll Free at 888-773-9224, by email at shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.

SinoTech provides Enhanced Oil Recovery (“EOR”) services to major oil and gas fields in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that the Company’s Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO was materially misleading and misrepresented the nature, size and scope of the Company’s business. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that SinoTech and certain of its executive officers and/or directors, among others, misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company’s sole import agent, who accounted for more than $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty shell company with no sign of operations; (2) the Company’s only chemical supplier is also an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company’s largest subcontracting customer, which provides the vast majority of SinoTech’s revenues, has unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in the United States were inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions in violation of GAAP; (6) as such, the Company’s financial results were not prepared in accordance with GAAP; (7) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8), as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 16, 2011, following the disclosures of these allegations in a research report published by Alfredlittle.com, the NASDAQ halted the trading of SinoTech shares and announced that trading would remain halted until the Company “fully satisfied NASDAQ’s request for additional information.” To date, trading of SinoTech has not resumed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the Court, no later than October 18, 2011, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class you need not take action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at 310-201-9150 or Toll Free at 888-773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.

Related listings

  • Rentech Announces Final Court Approvals of Settlements

    Rentech Announces Final Court Approvals of Settlements

    Class Action News 09/28/2011

    Rentech, Inc. announced today that it has received final court approvals for the settlements of the securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits against the Company and a number of its current and former directors and officers. The law...

  • Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action

    Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Files Class Action

    Class Action News 09/26/2011

    Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a proposed class of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. shareholders who held Allos common stock ...

  • Kona coffee dispute prompts class-action lawsuit

    Kona coffee dispute prompts class-action lawsuit

    Class Action News 09/21/2011

    A spat involving Safeway and Hawaii coffee growers is still brewing, even after the supermarket giant agreed to change labeling on its Kona blend coffee. A $5 million class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Northern California claiming Saf...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

St Peters, MO Professional License Attorney Attorney John Lynch has been the go-to choice for many professionals facing administrative sanction. >> read