A fourth law firm has filed suit against Swift Transportation and some of its officers.
Wechsler Harwood LLP announced the class action suit in a press release last week. The suit was filed on behalf of those who may have purchased Swift Transportation stock between Oct. 16, 2003 and Oct. 1, 2004.
New York-based Wechsler Harwood is the fourth law firm to file a federal class action suit on behalf of some Swift stockholders. Like the other suits, this one alleges Swift officials misrepresented or failed to disclose facts in order to prop up the company’s stock price.
The Wechsler Harwood press release and the complaint on its web site both refer to “new Department of Transportation regulations requiring that drivers be paid for loading time and time waiting to load.”
In fact, the DOT does not require truckload drivers to be paid for loading or waiting time.
Swift revealed an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission in October. The first three class action suits were filed in November.
Swift spokesman David Berry said he could not comment on pending litigation.
Wechsler Harwood LLP announced the class action suit in a press release last week. The suit was filed on behalf of those who may have purchased Swift Transportation stock between Oct. 16, 2003 and Oct. 1, 2004.
New York-based Wechsler Harwood is the fourth law firm to file a federal class action suit on behalf of some Swift stockholders. Like the other suits, this one alleges Swift officials misrepresented or failed to disclose facts in order to prop up the company’s stock price.
The Wechsler Harwood press release and the complaint on its web site both refer to “new Department of Transportation regulations requiring that drivers be paid for loading time and time waiting to load.”
In fact, the DOT does not require truckload drivers to be paid for loading or waiting time.
Swift revealed an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission in October. The first three class action suits were filed in November.
Swift spokesman David Berry said he could not comment on pending litigation.
media brand
0 Comments
See all comments