TELLURIAN INC. TELL (last ticker on record)
CIK 61398Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- Restatement
- SEC/DOJ scrutiny
- 95% wipeout
- Restructuring
- 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
- 4
- Newest began Jul 2024
- Largest fall in its shares
- 97%
- Feb 2017 to Apr 2024
- Law firms
- 11
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 2
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Debt accelerated (Item 2.04)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- 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)
- Shares down 95% from their high
- A filing mentions a Wells noticeForm 10-K (opens in a new tab)
- A filing mentions a Wells noticeForm 10-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K/A (opens in a new tab)
- 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)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K/A (opens in a new tab)
- 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)
- A filing mentions an SEC subpoenaForm 10-K (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K/A (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- A filing mentions cooperating with the SECForm 10-K (opens in a new tab)
- A filing mentions an SEC subpoenaForm 10-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.
- Kirkland & EllisFirst linked Jun 2022 · Named in a filing · 1,686 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.98× · Went dark 0.17× · 95% wipeout 0.87×
- Baker Botts L.L.P.First linked Apr 2020 · Named in a filing · 495 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.32× · Went dark 0.09× · 95% wipeout 1.03×
- Davis Graham & StubbsFirst linked Nov 2014 · Named in SEC correspondence · 142 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.97× · Went dark 0.97× · 95% wipeout 1.46×
- Ballard SpahrFirst linked Jun 2013 · Named in a filing · 492 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.23× · Went dark 1.06× · 95% wipeout 0.73×
- Bernstein Shur Sawyer & NelsonFirst linked Oct 2011 · Named in a filing · 10 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 3.41× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.82×
- Murtha CullinaFirst linked Jan 1999 · Named in SEC correspondence · 36 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.26× · Went dark 0.89× · 95% wipeout 1.26×
- Andrews Kurth LLPFirst linked Dec 2016 · Text search only · 398 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.27× · Went dark 0.35× · 95% wipeout 1.30×
- Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & MosleFirst linked Dec 2016 · Text search only · 35 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.49× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 2.03×
- Pillsbury WinthropFirst linked Dec 2016 · Text search only · 516 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.13× · Went dark 0.82× · 95% wipeout 1.27×
- Norton RoseFirst linked Oct 2016 · Text search only · 304 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.11× · Went dark 0.52× · 95% wipeout 1.24×
- Blank RomeFirst linked Sep 2008 · Text search only · 348 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.04× · Went dark 0.79× · 95% wipeout 1.36×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kirkland & Ellis | Jun 2022 | Named in a filing | 1,686 | 0.98 | 0.17 | 0.87 |
| Baker Botts L.L.P. | Apr 2020 | Named in a filing | 495 | 1.32 | 0.09 | 1.03 |
| Davis Graham & Stubbs | Nov 2014 | Named in SEC correspondence | 142 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 1.46 |
| Ballard Spahr | Jun 2013 | Named in a filing | 492 | 1.23 | 1.06 | 0.73 |
| Bernstein Shur Sawyer & Nelson | Oct 2011 | Named in a filing | 10 | 3.41 | 0.00 | 0.82 |
| Murtha Cullina | Jan 1999 | Named in SEC correspondence | 36 | 1.26 | 0.89 | 1.26 |
| Andrews Kurth LLP | Dec 2016 | Text search only | 398 | 1.27 | 0.35 | 1.30 |
| Curtis Mallet-Prevost Colt & Mosle | Dec 2016 | Text search only | 35 | 1.49 | 0.00 | 2.03 |
| Pillsbury Winthrop | Dec 2016 | Text search only | 516 | 1.13 | 0.82 | 1.27 |
| Norton Rose | Oct 2016 | Text search only | 304 | 1.11 | 0.52 | 1.24 |
| Blank Rome | Sep 2008 | Text search only | 348 | 1.04 | 0.79 | 1.36 |
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.
- John ElofsonDavis Graham & StubbsFirst linked Nov 2014 · Named in SEC correspondence · 19 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.99× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.89×
- Edward B. WhittemoreMurtha CullinaFirst linked Oct 2003 · Named in SEC correspondence · 8 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.13× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.11×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| John ElofsonDavis Graham & Stubbs | Nov 2014 | Named in SEC correspondence | 19 | 0.99 | 0.00 | 1.89 |
| Edward B. WhittemoreMurtha Cullina | Oct 2003 | Named in SEC correspondence | 8 | 1.13 | 0.00 | 1.11 |