This case was last updated from PACER on 05/03/2021 at 08:41:05 (UTC).

JACOBOWITZ v. RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION et al

Case Summary

On March 04, 2021, Howard Jacobowitz individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Alfred G. Yates, Jr. of Law Office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr., P.C. filed a class action lawsuit against Range Resources Corporation (“Range Resources” or the “Company”), Jeffrey L. Ventura (“Ventura”), Mark S. Scucchi (“Scucchi”), Roger S. Manny (“Manny”). Defendants Ventura, Scucchi, and Manny are sometimes referred to herein as the “Individual Defendants.” Plaintiff sought certification of class action, damages among other reliefs for allegedly misleading investors by making false/misleading statements about the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania with Judge David S. Cercone and Judge Robert J. Colville presiding

 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Plaintiff asserts to have filed the claim on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Range Resources common stock during the Class Period (the “Class”); and were damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.

 

Plaintiff in its complaint alleged that “The statements referenced in ¶¶ 22-40 were materially false and misleading because Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Range Resources had improperly designated the status of its wells in Pennsylvania since at least 2013; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory investigation and enforcement, as well as artificially decreased the Company’s periodically reported cost estimates to plug and abandon its wells; (iii) the Company was the subject of a DEP investigation from sometime between September 2017 to January 2021 for improperly designating the status of its wells; (iv) the DEP investigation foreseeably would and ultimately did lead to the Company incurring regulatory fines; and (v) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.”

 

Plaintiff further alleged that “Defendants engaged in a plan, scheme, conspiracy and course of conduct, pursuant to which they knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon Plaintiff and the other members of the Class; made various untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud in connection with the purchase and sale of securities.”

 

There are two claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim for relief is against all Defendants for Violation of Section 10(b) of The Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 Promulgated Thereunder and the second claim is against the individual defendants for violation of Section 20(a) of The Exchange Act. 

 

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the court to pass an order to define the class as requested and to certify this as a class action in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, awarding damages in favor of Plaintiff along with costs of litigation. 

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

 

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    2:21-CV-00301

  • Filing Date:

    03/04/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Finance - Security/Commodity/Exchange

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

David S. Cercone

Robert J. Colville

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HOWARD JACOBOWITZ

Defendants

MARK S. SCUCCHI

ROGER S. MANNY

JEFFREY L. VENTURA

RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Alfred G. Yates, Jr.

Attorney at Law Office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr., P.C.

1575 Mcfarland Road, Ste 305

Pittsburgh, PA 15216

 

Court Documents

#1

1 #1

Certification Pursuant to Federal Securities Laws

1 #2

Appendix

1 #3

Civil Cover Sheet

#2

2 #1

Summons

2 #2

Summons

2 #3

Summons

#4

#5

#6

RESTRICTED

#7

#8

#9

#10

5 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#10) WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by HOWARD JACOBOWITZ. JEFFREY L. VENTURA waiver sent on 3/15/2021, answer due 5/14/2021. (Yates, Alfred) (Entered: 04/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by HOWARD JACOBOWITZ. MARK S. SCUCCHI waiver sent on 3/15/2021, answer due 5/14/2021. (Yates, Alfred) (Entered: 04/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by HOWARD JACOBOWITZ. ROGER S. MANNY waiver sent on 3/15/2021, answer due 5/14/2021. (Yates, Alfred) (Entered: 04/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/01/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by HOWARD JACOBOWITZ. RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION waiver sent on 3/15/2021, answer due 5/14/2021. (Yates, Alfred) (Entered: 04/01/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) AT&T SCHEDULING NOTICE FOR ALL TELEPHONIC CONFERENCES. Every Telephonic Conference conducted will be via an AT&T call-in number which requires participants to dial-in and provide an access code. When a Telephonic Conference is scheduled you will be instructed to refer back to this. This document has a security setting of "Case Participants Only," so only those individuals will have access to view the document. (jg) (Entered: 03/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) ORDER RE: Rule 12(b) Motions (details more fully stated in said Order). Signed by Judge Robert J. Colville on 3/5/21. (jg) (Entered: 03/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) NOTICE that instant civil action has been designated for placement into the United States District Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program. Parties are directed to fully complete the required 26(f) report, which includes the stipulation of selecting an ADR process. Counsel for plaintiff (or in the case of a removal action, counsel for removing defendant) shall make service of the notice on all parties. (jg) (Entered: 03/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • DocketJudge Robert J. Colville added. (mao) (Entered: 03/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2021
  • Docket(#3) ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Judge David S. Cercone no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 3/5/2021. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (kly) (Entered: 03/05/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) Summons Issued as to ROGER S. MANNY, RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION, MARK S. SCUCCHI, JEFFREY L. VENTURA (Attachments: #1 Summons, #2 Summons, #3 Summons) (jjg) (Entered: 03/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against ROGER S. MANNY, RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION, MARK S. SCUCCHI, JEFFREY L. VENTURA (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $402, receipt number APAWDC-6393902), filed by HOWARD JACOBOWITZ. (Attachments: #1 Certification Pursuant to Federal Securities Laws, #2 Appendix, #3 Civil Cover Sheet) (jjg) (Entered: 03/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Range Resources, Ltd. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Alfred G. Yates, Jr.