RADNOR, Pa., March 18 /PRNewswire/ -- The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP:
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Force Protection, Inc. ("Force Protection" or the "Company") between August 14, 2006 and February 29, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").
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 Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at
The Complaint charges Force Protection and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Force Protection is a designer, developer and manufacturer of survivability equipment, predominantly ballistic- and blast-protected wheeled vehicles currently deployed by the U.S. military and its allies to support armed forces and security personnel in conflict zones.
The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company was having persistent problems meeting delivery deadlines, which was impacting the Company's ability to compete in the U. S. military's Mine Resistant Ambush Protect ("MRAP") market; (2) that the Company's ability to compete for government contracts was impaired, due to the Company's inadequate financial system of accounting, as evidenced by a critical report from the Defense Contract Audit Agency ("DCAA"); (3) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Beginning in May 2004, the DCAA issued periodic reports that were critical of the Company's finances and financial accounting system. Even after these critical reports, the Company continued to state that its internal control processes were effective.
On June 27, 2007, the Company's processes were again questioned when the Department of Defense's Office of Inspector General issued a report that was critical of the Company's ability to perform government contracts; charged that the Company had continuously missed delivery deadlines; and stated that the Company did not perform as a responsible contractor. Moreover, the report stated that other companies could have competed with certain Force Protection products in terms of faster delivery schedules and product capability.
Then, on February 29, 2008 and March 3, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it would delay filing of its 2007 Annual Report and that it would restate its financial statements for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2007. Additionally, the Company admitted to a multitude of internal problems, including: (1) ineffective control over the financial statements closing process; (2) ineffective controls in accounting for inventory and the associated accounts payable expenses related to the receipt of inventory; (3) insufficient complement of personnel with an appropriate level of accounting knowledge, experience with the Company, and training in the application of GAAP in the United States; and (4) ineffective controls over the completeness and accuracy of deferred tax balances.
Upon the release of the February 29, 2008 and March 3, 2008 news, the Company's shares declined $0.53 per share, or 12.9 percent, to close on March 3, 2008 at $3.58 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. During the Class Period, shares of the Company's stock traded as high as $30.27 per share and had begun a decline since the Company and the press began to slowly release information about the Company's internal deficiencies.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.
For more information about Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler or to sign up to participate in this action online, please visit http://www.sbtklaw.com/
If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than May 9, 2008, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts 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 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.
CONTACT: Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
Or by e-mail at
