Energy Infrastructure Acquisition Corp. EII (last ticker on record)
CIK 1350886Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- Restatement
- Delisting notice (not a red flag)
These figures describe clients, not conduct. A lawyer or firm can serve many companies that later had trouble for reasons that have nothing to do with their work, and nothing here says any lawyer or firm did anything wrong.
- Red flags
- 1
- Newest began Mar 2008
- Largest fall in its shares
- —
- None of 95% on record
- Law firms
- 4
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 4
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Said its accounts could not be relied on (Item 4.02)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
An SEC release can name a company’s officer, or its stock as what a scheme sold or moved, so the company may be the victim. Each link goes to what to read.
Law firms
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Loeb & Loeb LLPFirst linked Feb 2006 · Named in SEC correspondence · 838 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.92× · Went dark 0.99× · 95% wipeout 1.10×
- Reeder & SimpsonFirst linked Feb 2008 · Text search only · 47 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.65× · Went dark 0.60× · 95% wipeout 1.49×
- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLPFirst linked Feb 2008 · Text search only · 2,607 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.15× · Went dark 0.19× · 95% wipeout 0.85×
- Watson Farley & WilliamsFirst linked Feb 2008 · Text search only · 93 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.59× · Went dark 0.32× · 95% wipeout 1.37×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loeb & Loeb LLP | Feb 2006 | Named in SEC correspondence | 838 | 0.92 | 0.99 | 1.10 |
| Reeder & Simpson | Feb 2008 | Text search only | 47 | 0.65 | 0.60 | 1.49 |
| Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Feb 2008 | Text search only | 2,607 | 1.15 | 0.19 | 0.85 |
| Watson Farley & Williams | Feb 2008 | Text search only | 93 | 0.59 | 0.32 | 1.37 |
Lawyers
The ratios are about all the companies linked to each one, this one included: how many had that outcome, as a multiple of what comparable companies show. 1.00 means no more than expected.
- Douglas S. EllenoffEllenoff Grossman & Schole LLPFirst linked Feb 2006 · Named in a filing · 338 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.95× · Went dark 0.66× · 95% wipeout 0.95×
- Mitchell S. NussbaumLoeb & Loeb LLPFirst linked Feb 2006 · Named in SEC correspondence · 391 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.98× · Went dark 0.93× · 95% wipeout 1.21×
- Daniel C. RodgersWatson Farley & WilliamsFirst linked Feb 2008 · Text search only · 7 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.00× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.98×
- Jonathan B. StoneSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLPFirst linked Feb 2008 · Text search only · 60 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.51× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.20×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Douglas S. EllenoffEllenoff Grossman & Schole LLP | Feb 2006 | Named in a filing | 338 | 0.95 | 0.66 | 0.95 |
| Mitchell S. NussbaumLoeb & Loeb LLP | Feb 2006 | Named in SEC correspondence | 391 | 0.98 | 0.93 | 1.21 |
| Daniel C. RodgersWatson Farley & Williams | Feb 2008 | Text search only | 7 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.98 |
| Jonathan B. StoneSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Feb 2008 | Text search only | 60 | 0.51 | 0.00 | 1.20 |