CANAL Corp CSKEQ (last ticker on record)
CIK 19731Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- SEC/DOJ scrutiny
- Restatement
- Restructuring
- Delisting notice (not a red flag)
- 95% wipeout
- Bankruptcy
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
- 5
- Newest began Apr 2011
- Largest fall in its shares
- 99%
- Dec 2004 to Mar 2009
- Law firms
- 3
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 2
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- Bankruptcy or receivership (Item 1.03)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Bankruptcy or receivership (Item 1.03)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Shares down 95% from their high
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Exit or disposal costs (Item 2.05)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)
- Exit or disposal costs (Item 2.05)Form 8-K/A (opens in a new tab)
- Exit or disposal costs (Item 2.05)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Exit or disposal costs (Item 2.05)Form 8-K/A (opens in a new tab)
- Exit or disposal costs (Item 2.05)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)
- A filing mentions cooperating with the SECForm 10-Q (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.
- Hunton & WilliamsFirst linked Nov 1994 · Named in SEC correspondence · 404 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.06× · Went dark 0.36× · 95% wipeout 0.65×
- Slaughter and MayFirst linked Feb 2004 · Text search only · 35 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.64× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.22×
- Davis PolkFirst linked Dec 2001 · Text search only · 1,694 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.26× · Went dark 0.06× · 95% wipeout 1.02×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hunton & Williams | Nov 1994 | Named in SEC correspondence | 404 | 1.06 | 0.36 | 0.65 |
| Slaughter and May | Feb 2004 | Text search only | 35 | 1.64 | 0.00 | 1.22 |
| Davis Polk | Dec 2001 | Text search only | 1,694 | 1.26 | 0.06 | 1.02 |
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.
- Rohan S. WeerasingheShearman & SterlingFirst linked Dec 2003 · Named in a filing · 19 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.78× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.75×
- Gary E. ThompsonHunton & WilliamsFirst linked Dec 2001 · Named in a filing · 9 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 2.58× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.29×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rohan S. WeerasingheShearman & Sterling | Dec 2003 | Named in a filing | 19 | 0.78 | 0.00 | 1.75 |
| Gary E. ThompsonHunton & Williams | Dec 2001 | Named in a filing | 9 | 2.58 | 0.00 | 1.29 |