KOPPERS INC
CIK 916075Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- Restructuring
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 Apr 2006
- Largest fall in its shares
- —
- None of 95% on record
- Law firms
- 6
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 3
- Linked to 5 or more companies
What happened
- 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)
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.
- Reed SmithFirst linked Jan 2004 · Named in SEC correspondence · 487 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.15× · Went dark 0.77× · 95% wipeout 1.13×
- Shearman & SterlingFirst linked Feb 2010 · Text search only · 2,649 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.21× · Went dark 0.13× · 95% wipeout 0.87×
- Pinsent MasonsFirst linked Sep 2009 · Text search only · 27 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.21× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.55×
- Baker & McKenzieFirst linked Jan 2004 · Text search only · 587 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.07× · Went dark 0.72× · 95% wipeout 1.00×
- Cahill Gordon & ReindelFirst linked Jan 2004 · Text search only · 598 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.03× · Went dark 0.18× · 95% wipeout 0.77×
- Schnader Harrison Segal & LewisFirst linked Jan 2004 · Text search only · 54 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.05× · Went dark 0.64× · 95% wipeout 1.02×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reed Smith | Jan 2004 | Named in SEC correspondence | 487 | 1.15 | 0.77 | 1.13 |
| Shearman & Sterling | Feb 2010 | Text search only | 2,649 | 1.21 | 0.13 | 0.87 |
| Pinsent Masons | Sep 2009 | Text search only | 27 | 1.21 | 0.00 | 0.55 |
| Baker & McKenzie | Jan 2004 | Text search only | 587 | 1.07 | 0.72 | 1.00 |
| Cahill Gordon & Reindel | Jan 2004 | Text search only | 598 | 1.03 | 0.18 | 0.77 |
| Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis | Jan 2004 | Text search only | 54 | 1.05 | 0.64 | 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.
- Hannah T. FrankMcGuireWoods LLPFirst linked Jul 2009 · Named in SEC correspondence · 15 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.60× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.00×
- ROBERT K. MORRISReed SmithFirst linked Aug 2006 · Named in SEC correspondence · 7 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 2.34× · Went dark 4.25× · 95% wipeout 0.00×
- Richard E. FarleyCahill Gordon & ReindelFirst linked Jan 2004 · Text search only · 11 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 3.12× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.90×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hannah T. FrankMcGuireWoods LLP | Jul 2009 | Named in SEC correspondence | 15 | 0.60 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| ROBERT K. MORRISReed Smith | Aug 2006 | Named in SEC correspondence | 7 | 2.34 | 4.25 | 0.00 |
| Richard E. FarleyCahill Gordon & Reindel | Jan 2004 | Text search only | 11 | 3.12 | 0.00 | 0.90 |