Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. SGIC (last ticker on record)
CIK 802301Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- SEC/DOJ scrutiny
- 95% wipeout
- Restructuring
- Delisting notice (not a red flag)
- 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
- 4
- Newest began Apr 2009
- Largest fall in its shares
- 99%
- Feb 1999 to Jul 2006
- Law firms
- 6
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 6
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Bankruptcy or receivership (Item 1.03)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)
- 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 (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)
- Bankruptcy or receivership (Item 1.03)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Exit or disposal costs (Item 2.05)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Debt accelerated (Item 2.04)Form 8-K (opens in a new tab)
- Bankruptcy or receivership (Item 1.03)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)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)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)
- 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)
- Shares down 95% from their high
- SEC enforcement releaseSEC release (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.
- Cooley LLPFirst linked Nov 2007 · Named in SEC correspondence · 1,634 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.71× · Went dark 0.44× · 95% wipeout 1.24×
- Morgan LewisFirst linked Apr 2007 · Named in a filing · 1,028 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.18× · Went dark 0.31× · 95% wipeout 1.02×
- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLPFirst linked Jan 2007 · Named in a filing · 1,051 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.31× · Went dark 0.27× · 95% wipeout 0.91×
- Davis PolkFirst linked Apr 2003 · Named in a filing · 1,694 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.26× · Went dark 0.06× · 95% wipeout 1.02×
- Shearman & SterlingFirst linked May 1995 · Named in SEC correspondence · 2,649 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.21× · Went dark 0.13× · 95% wipeout 0.87×
- Jeffer MangelsFirst linked Dec 2003 · Text search only · 45 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.52× · Went dark 1.35× · 95% wipeout 2.00×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cooley LLP | Nov 2007 | Named in SEC correspondence | 1,634 | 0.71 | 0.44 | 1.24 |
| Morgan Lewis | Apr 2007 | Named in a filing | 1,028 | 1.18 | 0.31 | 1.02 |
| Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP | Jan 2007 | Named in a filing | 1,051 | 1.31 | 0.27 | 0.91 |
| Davis Polk | Apr 2003 | Named in a filing | 1,694 | 1.26 | 0.06 | 1.02 |
| Shearman & Sterling | May 1995 | Named in SEC correspondence | 2,649 | 1.21 | 0.13 | 0.87 |
| Jeffer Mangels | Dec 2003 | Text search only | 45 | 0.52 | 1.35 | 2.00 |
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.
- Jodie M. BourdetCooley LLPFirst linked Nov 2007 · Named in SEC correspondence · 35 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.60× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 2.00×
- Craig W. AdasWeil, Gotshal & Manges LLPFirst linked Jan 2007 · Named in a filing · 23 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.62× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.49×
- William M. KellyDavis PolkFirst linked Nov 2003 · Named in a filing · 12 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.18× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.00×
- Daniel G. Kelly Jr.Davis PolkFirst linked Apr 2003 · Named in a filing · 10 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.26× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.05×
- William H. Hinman Jr.Simpson Thacher & BartlettFirst linked Jul 1997 · Named in a filing · 39 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 2.18× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.11×
- Michael J. KennedyShearman & SterlingFirst linked May 1995 · Named in SEC correspondence · 20 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 2.39× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.15×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jodie M. BourdetCooley LLP | Nov 2007 | Named in SEC correspondence | 35 | 0.60 | 0.00 | 2.00 |
| Craig W. AdasWeil, Gotshal & Manges LLP | Jan 2007 | Named in a filing | 23 | 0.62 | 0.00 | 0.49 |
| William M. KellyDavis Polk | Nov 2003 | Named in a filing | 12 | 1.18 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Daniel G. Kelly Jr.Davis Polk | Apr 2003 | Named in a filing | 10 | 1.26 | 0.00 | 1.05 |
| William H. Hinman Jr.Simpson Thacher & Bartlett | Jul 1997 | Named in a filing | 39 | 2.18 | 0.00 | 1.11 |
| Michael J. KennedyShearman & Sterling | May 1995 | Named in SEC correspondence | 20 | 2.39 | 0.00 | 1.15 |