Thomas Bennett III, Et Al. V. Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, Et Al
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
~' r- n r-fir r., COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP Peter S. Pearhnan Fed. Bar No. - PP8416 ~ L! 7 Park 80 Plaza West - One Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 (201) 845-9600 Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY THOMAS BENNETT III, Individually and on ) CASE NO. Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff, ) FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS vs. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED N.V. KONINKLIJKE NEDERLANDSCUE PETROLEUM MAATSCHAPPIJ, a/k/a ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM COMPANY, THE SHELL TRANSPORT AND TRADING COMPANY,PLC, SHELL PETROLEUM, N.V., THE SHELL PETROLEUM COMPANY, LTD., MAARTEN VAN DER BERGH, JUDY BOYNTON, MALCOLM BRINDED, S .L. MILLER, HARRY J.M. ROELS, PAUL D. SKINNER, M. MOODY-STUART, JEROEN VAN DER VEER, AND PH LIP R . WATTS Defendants. PLAINTIFF'S CLASS ACTION COMPLAIN T Plaintiff has alleged the following based upon the investigation of plaintiff's counsel, whic h included a review of United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filings by Royal Dutch Petroleum Company ("Royal Dutch") and the Shell Transport and Trading Company, PLC ("Shell Transport"), as well as regulatory filings and reports, securities analysts reports an d advisories about Royal Dutch and/or Shell Transport, press releases and other public statements issued by Royal Dutch and/or Shell Transport, and media reports about Royal Dutch and/or Shell Transport, and plaintiff believes that substantial additional evidentiary support will exist for th e allegations set forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. NATURE OF THE ACTIO N 1 . This is a federal class action on behalf ofpurchasers of the securities, including the common stock traded in overseas markets and the American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company ("Royal Dutch") (NYSE : RD) and/or The Shell Transport and Trading Company, PLC ("Shell Transport") (NYSE: SC) between December 3, 19.99 and January 9, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( the "Exchange Act"). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to §27 of the Exchange Act (15 U .S.C. §78aa) and 28 U.S.C. §1331 . 3 . Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 a s amended (15 U.S.C . §§ 78j(b) and 78t(a)), and Rule lOb-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §240.1 Ob-5). Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U .S.C. §78aa, and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). Defendants engage in the major manufacturing and sale of petrochemical and related products along the Eastern Seaboard and maintain a fuel, lubricant, an d specialty additives research, manufacturing, and sales facility in Linden, New Jersey . 4. In connection with the acts alleged in this complaint, defendants, directly or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including, but not limited to, the mails, interstate telephone communications and the facilities of the national securities markets . -2- PARTIES 5 . Plaintiff, as set forth in the accompanying certification, incorporated by reference herein, purchased the ADRs ofRoyal Dutch at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and has been damaged thereby. 6. Defendant Royal Dutch Petroleum Company ("Royal Dutch") is a Netherland s corporation with its principal executive office located at 30, Carel van Bylandtlaan, 2596 HR The Hague, The Netherlands . Royal Dutch is a 60% owner of Shell Petroleum Netherlands and Shel l Petroleum UK. 7. Defendant The Shell Transport and Trading Company, PLC ("Shell Transport") is an English corporation with its principal executive offices located at Shell Centre, London SE1, 7NA. Shell Transport is a 40% owner of Shell Petroleum Netherlands and Shell Petroleum UK. 8 . Defendant Shell Petroleum N.V. ("Shell Petroleum Netherlands") is incorporated in The Netherlands and is 60% owned by Royal Dutch and 40% owned by Shell Transport . 9. Defendant The Shell Petroleum Company Limited ("Shell Petroleum UK") i s registered in England and Wales and is 60% owned by Royal Dutch and 40% owned by Shel l Transport. 10. The following defendants, each of whom was an executive officer of Royal Dutch or Shell Transport, served as Group Managing Directors (as defined below) at the various times during the Class Period : Maarten van den Bergh, JudyBoynton, Malcolm Brinded, S .L. Miller, Harry J. M. Roels, Paul D. Skinner, M. Moody-Stuart, Jeroen van der Veer, and Philip R . Watts ("Watts"). 11 . Additionally, defendant Watts was, at all relevant times, Director and Managing Director of Shell Transport and Chairman of Shell Transport since 2001 . Watts also served as Chie f -3- Executive Officer, Exploration and Production, from 1997-2001 and, in that capacity, led Shel l Transport' s oil and gas exploration unit when some of the recategorized reserves described below were booked . 12. Defendants Maarten van den Bergh, Judy Boynton, Malcolm Brinded, S .L. Miller, Harry J. M. Roels, Paul D . Skinner, M. Moody-Stuart, Jeroen van der Veer, and Philip R. Watts are collectively referred to hereafter as the "Individual Defendants." During the Class Period, each of the Individual Defendants, as senior executive officers and/or directors of Royal Dutch and/or Shel l Transport, were privy to non-public information concerning its business , finances, products, markets and present and future business prospects via access to internal corporate documents, conversations and connections with other corporate officers and employees, attendance at m anagement and Board of Directors meetings and committees thereof and via reports and other information provided to them in connection therewith . Because of their possession of such information, the Individual Defendants knew of or recklessly disregarded the fact that adverse facts specified herein had not been disclosed to, and were being concealed from, the investing public . PLAINTIFF'S CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 13 . Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and all purchasers of Royal Dutch and/or Shell Transport securities, including ADRs and ordinary shares, from December 3, 1999 to January 9 , 2004. Excluded from the Class are defendants herein, members of the immediate family of each o f the defendants, any person, firm, trust, corporation, officer, director or other individual or entity in which any defendant has a controlling interest or which is related to or affiliated with any of th e -4- defendants, and the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any such excluded party. 14. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The precise number of Class members is unknown to plaintiff at this time but i s believed to be in the thousands. In addition, the names and addresses of the Class members can be ascertained from the books and records of Royal Dutch and Shell Transport or their respective transfer agents. Notice can be provided to such record owners by a combination of published notice and first-class mail, using techniques and a form of notice similar to those customarily used in class actions arising under the federal securities laws . 15. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiff has retained competent counsel experienced in class action litigation under the federal securities laws to further ensure such protection and intends to prosecute this action vigorously. 16. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the othermembers of the Class because plaintiff's and all the class members' damages arise from and were caused by the same false and misleading representations and omissions made by or chargeable to defendants . Plaintiff does not have any interests antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the Class . 17. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and e fficient adjudication of this controversy . Since the damages suffered by individual class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it virtually impossible for the class members to seek redress for the wrongful conduct alleged. Plaintiffknows of no difficulty that -5- will be encountered in the management of this litigation that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. 18. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class an d predominate over any questions affecting individual members of the Class. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Class are : a. Whether the federal securities laws were violated by defendants ' acts as alleged herein ; b. Whether Royal Dutch 's and/or Shell Transport's publiclydisseminated press releases and statements during the Class Period omitted and/or misrepresented material facts ; c. Whether defendants breached any duty to convey material facts or to correct material facts previously disseminated ; d. Whether defendants acted willfully, with knowledge or recklessly, in omittin g and/or misrepresenting material facts ; and e. The extent of injuries sustained by members of the Class and the appropriat e measure of damages. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS Background of Royal Dutch/Shell 25 . Royal Dutch and Shell Transport are separate holding companies that own; directly or indirectly, investments in numerous operating and holding companies engaged in the business o f producing, refining, storing, transporting, supplying and distributing petroleum and petroleum products. In addition, the operating companies owned by Royal Dutch and Shell Transport are -6- engaged in various activities related to oil and natural gas, chemicals, power generation, renewable resources and other businesses in over 145 countries . 26. Royal Dutch and Shell Transport operate under an alliance made in 1907, by which the two companies agreed to merge their interests on a 60:40 basis while remaining separate and distinct entities.