Connect with us:   Subscribe to the paper  |   View the mobile edition  |   Get daily e-mail news  |   Get mobile alerts  |   Share your photos  |   Report news  |   Place an ad  |   Contact us


Suit targets Force Protection leaders

9 current, former executives blamed for shareholder losses

The Post and Courier
Thursday, May 15, 2008


Three shareholders of armored vehicle manufacturer Force Protection Inc. are suing a group of the company's current and former executives.

Wade Spees
The Post and Courier

Three shareholders of armored vehicle manufacturer Force Protection Inc. are suing a group of the company's current and former executives.

Three shareholders of armored vehicle manufacturer Force Protection Inc. are suing a group of the company's current and former executives, alleging that they caused the company's stock value to tumble and damaged the Ladson-based company's reputation in the marketplace.

The lawsuit accuses nine executives and directors of breach of fiduciary duty, insider trading and misappropriation of information, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and abuse of control.

Named as defendants are Michael Moody, the company's chief executive, president and chairman, as well as current directors Jack A. Davis, Roger G. Thompson Jr. and John S. Day.

Former Chairman Frank Kavanaugh and former CEO Gordon R. McGilton also are named in the complaint, as are former executives R. Scott Ervin, Michael S. Durski and Raymond Pollard.

The shareholders filed the lawsuits on behalf of Force Protection, which means any monetary award would be paid to Force Protection, not the three stockholders.

Force Protection spokesman Tommy Pruitt said the claims are baseless.

"We believe that these claims are without merit and we're going to vigorously defend ourselves," Pruitt said.

The 36-page complaint, filed May 5 in Charleston County Court of Common Pleas by Barbara A. Hughes, Luther F. Hughes and Clayton Reed, alleges that the executives took advantage of undisclosed information to sell their shares of Force Protection "for considerably more than they were worth."

The lawsuit, for example, alleges Kavanaugh and McGilton sold more than 2 million shares in the company for more than $47 million while in possession of "material nonpublic information" not available to other investors.

According to the complaint claims, the defendants had a duty to ensure that Force Protection's financial reporting fairly represented the company's operations and financial condition, but the defendants "engaged in reckless and wrongful acts including the dissemination of false and misleading information in the various public statements issued by the company."

The shareholders are seeking unspecified compensation from the current and former company officials for damages suffered by Force Protection as a result of their actions.

"We're suing the officers and directors for falling down on the job," said Badge Humphries, an attorney with Mount

Pleasant-based Motley Rice who is representing the stockholders. "The goal of this suit is to hold those folks accountable."

Force Protection makes mine-resistant vehicles equipped with special V-shaped metal hulls credited with saving the lives of service members in Iraq and other war zones littered with roadside bombs.

The company's shares have fallen sharply since last May, when they posted a closing high of $30.27. The stock closed Wednesday unchanged at $4.01 a share.

At least 10 lawsuits have been filed by Force Protection investors in U.S. District Court in Charleston that make similar allegations. Those lawsuits, unlike last week's county court filing, are seeking class-action status.

Reach Peter Hull at 937-5594 or phull@postandcourier.com.








Sponsored Links



Latest local stories

Notice about comments:
Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.

Comments

This article has  1 comment(s)

Posted by minervasteph on May 15, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for the continuing coverage of this story. The fact that any court awards will be plowed back into FPI gives this case validity, beyond the individual greed of investors. There are many sincere investors across the US who follow this story and are very worthy of updates. They get these updates via stock message boards. Thank you for this wonderful and honorable service.




(Requires free registration.)

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

Search Charleston.Net Archives for Latest News


Charleston.Net Customer Care | Subscribe to Paper, Register for email news updates, manage your online account, place a classified ad, or contact us




Charleston.net logo

Copyright © 1997 - 2008 the Evening Post Publishing Co.

Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of service, Privacy policy and our Parental consent form. (Updated 2/9/2007)