Skip to main content

Class Action Suit Against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.

The Maritime Executive reported today that all persons or entities who purchased Royal Caribbean securities from April 23, 2009 through and including July 27, 2011 ("Class Period") have filed a class action lawsuit against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and certain of its officers, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the defendants are alleged to have made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the company improperly accounted interest expenses related to the amortization of certain financing fees related to certain of the company's export credit agency guaranteed loans; (2) the company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 27, 2011, after the market closed, the company disclosed "an error in the previous accounting treatment of interest expense relating to its amortization of certain financing fees and has revised its past financial statements to reflect the correct accounting." As a result of the "error," the plaintiffs allege that the company admitted that it had overstated the earnings per share ("EPS") for 2009, 2010, and the first quarter of 2011 by $0.05, $0.15 and $0.06, respectively. The company has reduced its full-year earnings guidance by $0.10 per share excluding the "error," and by an additional $0.20 per share upon correcting the "error," rending the company's new outlook for 2011 EPS to a range of $2.85-$2.95, down from a previous range of $3.10-$3.30.

On this news, the company's shares declined $4.50 or more than 12.5% and closed at $31.26 the following day.

If you would like more information on this case or wish to contact me, you may do so at miampandi@comcast.net or motero@houckanderson.com.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maritime Law--Florida's Arbitration Code Is Now Revised

Those of us that practice maritime law regularly must always be on the lookout for the contract that may contain an arbitration clause. Thus, any laws related to arbitration are important to those of us practicing in this sector.       The Florida legislature has revised the Florida Arbitration Code ("FAC") and named it the Revised Florida Arbitration Code (the " Revised Act"). Since 1967, the FAC had gone mostly unchanged. The Revised Act addresses concepts that were not addressed in the old law, such as the ability of arbitrators to issue provision remedies, challenges based on notice, consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings, required conflict disclosures by arbitrators, among other major changes. The Revised Act lays out a detailed framework for international arbitration conducted under Florida law and repeals sections of the FAC. The Revised Act spells out what experienced arbitrators knew the case law to be, but codifies it all in one pl...
4 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Lozman Case Revisited in Miami?

In Hoefling v. City of Miami , Case no.: 14-12482 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit revived almost all of Hoefling's claims. You ask, "Who is Hoefling?" Hoefling  lived on his sailboat Metis O moored off Dinner Key for nearly a decade—until the day he came home and it was gone. About three months earlier, an officer from the Miami Police Department's Marine Patrol Detail tagged Hoefling's vessel for lacking a sanitary device and a working anchor light. He had a deal to use the facilities at the nearby marina but quickly went out and reportedly bought what he needed to comply. Three months later while he was on a business trip, the City of Miami seized and destroyed his boat and all his belongings. As a result, he was homeless. He sued under § 1983, maritime law, and state law. He stated a claim under the Fourth Amendment for seizure and destruction without notice or cause and a “taking.”    At the ...
5 comments
Read more

Maritime Law--Novel Rule B Attachment Rejected by Eleventh Circuit

In World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Management , Case No. 14-14838 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order vacating an attachment of legal settlement funds.  At issue in this appeal was an attachment of property made pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B. This appeal had a complicated background, involving multiple lawsuits in federal district courts, Florida state court, and a Spanish bankruptcy court. The common denominator of these suits was Quail Cruises Ship Management, from which multiple parties, including participants in the appeal, tried to collect money that they believed Quail owed them. This is not surprising, as there have been numerous cases against Quail due to a failed cruise venture they operated. The money at issue arose from the legal settlement of a dispute over the purchase of a cruise ship featured on ABC Television Network’s long-running series, The Love Boat. The ...
5 comments
Read more