CENVEO, INC CVO (last ticker on record)
CIK 920321Its SEC filings (opens in a new tab)
- 95% wipeout
- Bankruptcy
- 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
- 3
- Newest began Feb 2018
- Largest fall in its shares
- 97%
- Jul 2016 to Feb 2018
- Law firms
- 12
- Linked to 5 or more companies
- Lawyers
- 5
- 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)
- Shares down 95% from their high
- 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 (opens in a new tab)
- Delisting notice (Item 3.01)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.
- Davis Graham & StubbsFirst linked Apr 2012 · Named in a filing · 142 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.97× · Went dark 0.97× · 95% wipeout 1.46×
- Hughes Hubbard & ReedFirst linked Apr 2005 · Named in SEC correspondence · 121 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.17× · Went dark 0.21× · 95% wipeout 1.26×
- Faegre & BensonFirst linked Oct 2002 · Named in a filing · 160 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.90× · Went dark 0.59× · 95% wipeout 1.08×
- Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLPFirst linked May 1998 · Named in a filing · 21 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.62× · Went dark 1.85× · 95% wipeout 1.23×
- Rothgerber, Appel, Powers & Johnson LLPFirst linked May 1997 · Named in a filing · 7 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.00× · Went dark 2.89× · 95% wipeout 1.28×
- Bose McKinney & EvansFirst linked Apr 2012 · Text search only · 26 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.35× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.05×
- DLA PiperFirst linked Apr 2012 · Text search only · 1,184 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.00× · Went dark 0.45× · 95% wipeout 1.20×
- Shearman & SterlingFirst linked Apr 2010 · Text search only · 2,649 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.21× · Went dark 0.13× · 95% wipeout 0.87×
- HALE AND DORRFirst linked May 2009 · Text search only · 665 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.06× · Went dark 0.33× · 95% wipeout 1.26×
- Cahill Gordon & ReindelFirst linked Oct 2002 · Text search only · 598 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.03× · Went dark 0.18× · 95% wipeout 0.77×
- Kirkland & EllisFirst linked Oct 2002 · Text search only · 1,686 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.98× · Went dark 0.17× · 95% wipeout 0.87×
- Moye White LLPFirst linked Oct 2002 · Text search only · 18 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.90× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.38×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis Graham & Stubbs | Apr 2012 | Named in a filing | 142 | 0.97 | 0.97 | 1.46 |
| Hughes Hubbard & Reed | Apr 2005 | Named in SEC correspondence | 121 | 1.17 | 0.21 | 1.26 |
| Faegre & Benson | Oct 2002 | Named in a filing | 160 | 0.90 | 0.59 | 1.08 |
| Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons LLP | May 1998 | Named in a filing | 21 | 0.62 | 1.85 | 1.23 |
| Rothgerber, Appel, Powers & Johnson LLP | May 1997 | Named in a filing | 7 | 0.00 | 2.89 | 1.28 |
| Bose McKinney & Evans | Apr 2012 | Text search only | 26 | 0.35 | 0.00 | 1.05 |
| DLA Piper | Apr 2012 | Text search only | 1,184 | 1.00 | 0.45 | 1.20 |
| Shearman & Sterling | Apr 2010 | Text search only | 2,649 | 1.21 | 0.13 | 0.87 |
| HALE AND DORR | May 2009 | Text search only | 665 | 1.06 | 0.33 | 1.26 |
| Cahill Gordon & Reindel | Oct 2002 | Text search only | 598 | 1.03 | 0.18 | 0.77 |
| Kirkland & Ellis | Oct 2002 | Text search only | 1,686 | 0.98 | 0.17 | 0.87 |
| Moye White LLP | Oct 2002 | Text search only | 18 | 0.90 | 0.00 | 0.38 |
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.
- Gary J. SimonHughes Hubbard & ReedFirst linked Oct 2009 · Named in SEC correspondence · 38 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.48× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.14×
- Paul T. ShultzFirst linked Sep 2009 · Named in a filing · 136 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 1.34× · Went dark 0.18× · 95% wipeout 1.49×
- Kenneth A. LefkowitzHughes Hubbard & ReedFirst linked May 2009 · Named in a filing · 24 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.37× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 0.90×
- Charles A. SamuelsonHughes Hubbard & ReedFirst linked Jul 2007 · Named in SEC correspondence · 12 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.00× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.65×
- Philip P. RossettiHALE AND DORRFirst linked May 2009 · Text search only · 27 linked companiesSEC/DOJ scrutiny 0.62× · Went dark 0.00× · 95% wipeout 1.31×
| Name | First linked | How it is known | Linked companies | SEC/DOJ scrutiny | Went dark | 95% wipeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gary J. SimonHughes Hubbard & Reed | Oct 2009 | Named in SEC correspondence | 38 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 1.14 |
| Paul T. Shultz | Sep 2009 | Named in a filing | 136 | 1.34 | 0.18 | 1.49 |
| Kenneth A. LefkowitzHughes Hubbard & Reed | May 2009 | Named in a filing | 24 | 0.37 | 0.00 | 0.90 |
| Charles A. SamuelsonHughes Hubbard & Reed | Jul 2007 | Named in SEC correspondence | 12 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.65 |
| Philip P. RossettiHALE AND DORR | May 2009 | Text search only | 27 | 0.62 | 0.00 | 1.31 |