RADNOR, Pa., Aug. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The following statement was issued
today by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP:
Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
purchasers of securities of NovaGold Resources, Inc. (Amex: NG) ("NovaGold" or
the "Company") from October 25, 2006 through November 23, 2007, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via
e-mail at info@sbtklaw.com.
The Complaint charges NovaGold and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of
1934. NovaGold is engaged in the business of exploration and development of
mineral properties. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants falsely portrayed
NovaGold as a rapidly growing company on the verge of moving from a mid-tier
exploration and development company to a mid-tier gold and copper production
company by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
regarding the costs, progress and viability of its multi-billion dollar Galore
Creek project.
The Class Period begins on October 25, 2006, when NovaGold issued a press
release touting the results of a feasibility study performed by Hatch Ltd.
("Hatch") that purportedly "confirmed" the economic viability of the Galore
Creek project. According to a statement made by the Company's President and
CEO, Rick Van Nieuwenhuyse ("Nieuwenhuyse"), in the October 25, 2006 press
release, "the Feasibility Study confirms that Galore Creek is one of the
world's largest undeveloped copper-gold-silver projects with one of the lowest
cash costs in the industry ...." The Feasibility Study estimated the capital
costs for the Galore Creek project to be Cdn $2.2 billion. The Hatch
Feasibility Study enabled the Company to successfully fend off a hostile
takeover bid by mining giant Barrick Gold by maintaining the average closing
price of the Company's shares above Barrick Gold's$16 per share tender offer.
In fact, when fending off Barrick Gold's takeover bid Nieuwenhuyse assured
shareholders "that at US$16, NovaGold shares are better than money in the
bank." The Hatch Feasibility Study also allowed the Company to raise hundreds
of millions of dollars in an April 2007 secondary stock offering, thus
providing a strong motive for the Defendants to misrepresent the Hatch
Feasibility Study as a bankable study. Throughout the Class Period, the
Company regularly and systematically assured the investing public that the
construction of the Galore Creek project was on schedule and on budget.
On November 26, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced that
it would suspend activities at Galore Creek based on the results of an updated
feasibility study, which estimated the capital costs for the Galore Creek
project to be Cdn $5 billion -- approximately 127 percent greater than Hatch
had estimated in October 2006. Upon the release of this news, the Company's
shares declined $10.76 per share, or more than 53 percent, to close on
November 26, 2007 at $9.48 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is
represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler which
prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the
country. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler is a driving force behind
corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf
of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around
the world.
For more information about Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler or to sign
up to participate in this action online, please visit http://www.sbtklaw.com.
If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than
October 6, 2008, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if
you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is
typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not,
however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.
CONTACT: Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
Or by e-mail at info@sbtklaw.co
.gif)
