Altair Nanotechnologies Inc.

Shareholder Securities Fraud Litigation

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (OTC GREY: ALTI)

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, 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 common stock of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (“Altair” or the “Company”) (OTC GREY: ALTI) between May 15, 2013 and September 4, 2014, 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 Altair during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold Altair,  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., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com.                  

Altair develops, manufactures and sells nano lithium titanate batteries and energy storage systems.  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) the Company was experiencing significant executive management and accounting level turnover in 2013 which led to a lack of segregation of duties throughout the Company and resulted in a lack of controls to perform a timely review of transactions at an appropriate level of precision; (2) the Company did not implement adequate procedures and controls over the 2013 year-end financial close and reporting process to ensure timely filings in compliance with its financial reporting requirements; (3) the Company did not implement adequate procedures and controls to appropriately evaluate routine and non-routine transactions, and as a result, did not detect the material misstatements that were identified by its auditor during its audit process; (4) the Company did not implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure accurate and timely communication with its subsidiaries in China; and as a result of the foregoing, (5) the Company did not implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure the completeness and accuracy of its consolidated financial statements and related subsequent events.  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 September 4, 2014, the Company filed a form 8-K with the SEC, announcing that on August 28, 2014, its independent registered public accounting firm, Crowe Horwath LLP (“Crowe”), resigned as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.  According to the Form 8-K, Crowe’s resignation letter to the Company’s management and the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors advised the Company that it was resigning due to its inability to complete the audit of the Company’s financial statements for the year ended 2013 in part due to its inability to perform sufficient procedures to determine the completeness of reporting of subsequent events transactions that may have occurred in China.  Moreover, Crowe indicated that it was resigning in part due to the Company’s material weakness relative to implementing controls and procedures to ensure accurate and timely communications between the Company’s subsidiaries in China and its U.S.-based accounting team.

NASDAQ halted the trading of Altair on September 4, 2014 at $4.30 per share.  When Altair resumed trading on September 24, 2014, the Company’s shares plummeted almost 78%, closing at $0.95 per share.         

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 25, 2014.  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.