Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 15

Transcription

1 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x : NANCY GEORGE, ROBERT GEORGE AND RANDALL WHITMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, - against - Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No CHINA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., HANLIN CHEN, QIZHOU WU, XIE LIPING, WONG TSE YIU, WANG SHAOBO, YU SHENGBIN, and SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY FELDMAN LLP, Defendants x NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CHINA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC. ( CAAS ) COMMON STOCK, OR THAT PURCHASED AND/OR SOLD OPTIONS ON CAAS COMMON STOCK, FROM MAY 12, 2009 TO MARCH 17, 2011, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE CLASS PERIOD ). EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS ARE THE CAAS DEFENDANTS (CHINA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., HANLIN CHEN, AND QIZHOU WU), OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF CHINA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., MEMBERS OF THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES AND THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, AND ANY ENTITY IN WHICH A CAAS DEFENDANT HAS OR HAD A CONTROLLING INTEREST; THE AUDITOR DEFENDANT (SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY FELDMAN LLP), ALL CURRENT AND FORMER PARTNERS OR ACCOUNTING PERSONNEL OF THE AUDITOR DEFENDANT THAT WERE EMPLOYED BY THE AUDITOR DEFENDANT DURING THE CLASS PERIOD, THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES, THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, OR ASSIGNS, AND ANY ENTITY CONTROLLED OR OWNED BY ANY SUCH PERSON. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS

2 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 2 of 15 DESCRIBED HEREIN, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT PURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED BELOW. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs Lead Counsel, on behalf of the Lead Plaintiffs and Class Members, and Counsel for Defendant Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP ( Auditor Defendant ), on behalf of the Auditor Defendant, have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the Settlement Stipulation ) to settle the claims of the Lead Plaintiffs and Class in this Action. All Capitalized terms in this Notice are defined as referenced in the Settlement Stipulation. YOU ARE FURTHER NOTIFIED that a hearing (the Settlement Hearing ) shall be held before the Honorable Katherine B. Forrest, on, 2014, at, in Courtroom 15A of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, New York , for the purpose of determining, among other things: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Class s claims against the Defendants for $1,700, should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether the application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys fees and expenses should be approved; (4) whether the Lead Plaintiffs application for a Compensatory Award should be granted; and (5) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Settlement Stipulation filed with the Court. SUMMARY DISCLOSURE OF SETTLEMENT TERMS CLASS RECOVERY: The proposed Settlement is $1,700,000 (the Gross Settlement Fund ). Lead Plaintiffs estimate that there were approximately 7.1 million allegedly damaged shares of CAAS common stock purchased during the Class Period, and approximately 4.7 thousand stock option contracts (where an option contract represents 100 shares) on CAAS common stock open at the end of the Class Period. Pursuant to the Plan of Allocation (see Section III herein) allotting the Settlement Fund among the Class Members, and based on assumptions and calculations made by Lead Plaintiffs experts, the average per share recovery will depend upon, among other things, the number of Class Members submitting valid claims. The average per share recovery, before the deduction of any Court awarded attorneys fees and expenses, is $0.23 per share. Please be advised that the foregoing average per share recovery is an estimate. An explanation of how a Class Member s claim will be calculated is set forth in Section III. POTENTIAL OUTCOME OF THE CASE: Lead Plaintiffs and the Auditor Defendant vigorously disagree about both liability and damages, and do not agree as to whether Lead Plaintiffs would prevail on the alleged claims if the Action proceeded or the average amount per share that would be recoverable if Lead Plaintiffs did prevail on each claim alleged under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( Exchange Act ). With respect to the damages alleged in the Action, Lead Plaintiffs and the Auditor Defendant disagree on, among other things, the amount of damages per share, if any, that Lead Plaintiffs would be able to prove at trial; the methodology used to determine any such damages; and whether there were any mitigating circumstances which would reduce any or all of the damages alleged by Lead Plaintiffs. REASONS FOR SETTLEMENT: Lead Plaintiffs believe that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to members of the Class. Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel have reached this conclusion after investigating and considering, among other things, the strengths and weaknesses of Lead Plaintiffs claims 2

3 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 3 of 15 against the Auditor Defendant, including the Auditor Defendant s contentions that the Class s claims are without merit, the uncertainties in this complex litigation, and the concrete benefits provided by the Settlement to the members of the Class. The Auditor Defendant expressly denies that it has committed any act or omission giving rise to any liability or violation of law whatsoever and that Lead Plaintiffs or Class Members sustained any recoverable damages. The Auditor Defendant states that it is entering into the Settlement solely to eliminate the uncertainties, burden, risk and expense of further litigation of the Action. ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS SOUGHT: Lead Counsel intend to apply to the Court for an award of attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses ( Fee and Expense Award ) from the Gross Settlement Fund. Lead Counsel will seek no more than 30 percent of the Settlement Fund as fees, plus an additional amount not to exceed $275,000 as reimbursement for the expenses and costs actually incurred in prosecuting the Action (together approximately $0.13 per share). Lead Counsel believe their intended fee request to be fair and reasonable in light of the amount of time expended on the Action, the risks of proceeding with the Action, and the recovery obtained for the Class. IDENTIFICATION OF LEAD PLAINTIFFS LAWYERS REPRESENTATIVES: Questions concerning this proposed Settlement may be directed to Class Counsel: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, 600 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Telephone: , Toll-free: I. THE CLASS INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The proposed Settlement affects the rights of the members of the Class, which will be certified by entry of the Final Order and Judgment affirming the Settlement. The Class is defined as: All persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired CAAS Pharmaceutical Corporation ( CAAS ) common stock, or purchased and/or sold options on CAAS s common stock, from May 12, 2009 to March 17, 2011, both dates inclusive. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all current and former directors and officers of CAAS during the Class Period, and any family member, trust, company, entity or affiliate controlled or owned by any of the excluded persons or entities referenced above. II. THE ACTION Summary of the Action A class action is a lawsuit in which one or more persons sue on behalf of all other persons who have similar claims. The named plaintiffs in this action are Nancy George, Robert George, and Randall Whitman ( Lead Plaintiffs ), who were appointed lead plaintiffs to represent the class. The Defendants in this action are CAAS, Hanlin Chen, Qizhou Wu, and Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP ( SLF ).

4 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 4 of 15 Lead Plaintiffs Allegations Lead Plaintiffs in this action allege that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, Lead Plaintiffs allege that CAAS annual and quarterly reports, reviewed by SLF throughout the Class Period, were false and misleading because: (1) they repeatedly acknowledged the importance of accounting for its Convertible Notes 1 under EITF 07-05, but then failed to properly apply the accounting principle; (2) they failed to account for certain operating expenses and other charges against income; (3) they failed to reveal material deficiencies in [the Company s] internal controls; (4) they failed to disclose that the financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP ); and (5) they failed to disclose that SLF was not licensed to conduct audits in the PRC and therefore outsourced these critical duties to a local PRC subcontractor. Lead Plaintiffs allege that SLF falsely assured investors that it had audited CAAS pursuant to Generally Accepted Auditing Standards ( GAAS ) and that CAAS s financial statements were GAAP compliant. However, CAAS reported net income for that period was inflated by more than $39 million. In addition, SLF reviewed each of the allegedly false statements in CAAS 10-K enumerated in the Complaint. On December 13, 2010, the Company issued a press release announcing SLF s resignation, and the hiring of PwC in its stead. According to Lead Plaintiffs, this disclosure caused CAAS stock to steadily decline from $14.62 to $10.23 from December 13, 2010 to March 15, On March 17, 2011, CAAS disclosed for the first time in a press release and 8-K that it would have to delay the filing of its annual 10-K and restate its previously issued financial statements for 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010 due to accounting errors related to the Company s Convertible Notes. This disclosure revealed that on March 12, 2011, based upon PWC s audit procedures, the Audit Committee determined that it had improperly classified its Convertible Notes as equities, as opposed to liabilities as EITF required. CAAS common stock price dropped $1.42 or almost 14% in response on March 17, 2011, on unusually heavy trading volume. On March 18, 2011, after the market closed, the Company issued a press release announcing that it received a letter from the NASDAQ regarding its failure to comply with continued listing requirements, which require that companies timely file quarterly reports with the SEC. The NASDAQ letter further stated that CAAS had 60 calendar days, or until May 16, 2011, to submit a plan to NASDAQ to regain compliance. This caused CAAS common stock to decline $0.53 or almost 6% on March 21, The Company s restatement of net income for the Class Period totaled $ million, $33.2 million of which is attributable to the Company s failure to implement EITF Thus, cumulative 1 On February 15, 2008, the Company issued senior convertible notes to two institutional investors, Lehman Brothers ( Lehman ) and YA Global Investments L.P. ( YA Global ), pursuant to a signed Securities Purchase Agreement ( Agreement ) entered into between the parties on February 4, 2008 ( Convertible Notes or Notes ). 2 Trading in CAAS common stock was suspended on March 16,

5 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 5 of 15 net income for the restated periods was overstated by $39.7 million (over 170%). In addition, pre-tax income was overstated by over $33 million due to Defendants failure to record changes in fair value of its Convertible Notes, as required by EITF In other words, for the Class Period, instead of earning the $58.69 million that CAAS touted to investors, it only earned $21.2 million. Thus, CAAS Class Period earnings were overstated by over 180%. Defendants Position The CAAS Defendants and the Auditor Defendant have denied, and continue to deny, Lead Plaintiffs allegations. In particular, the Auditor Defendant asserts that its decision to resign was related to the additional costs and resources that would be required to conduct the upcoming audit of CAAS year-end financial statements for 2010, as opposed to any licensing issues. Further, the Auditor Defendant asserts that its licensing status did not prevent it from conducting a proper audit of CAAS financial statements. Moreover, the Auditor Defendant maintains that it conducted a reasonable audit of CAAS consistent with GAAS, had a reasonable basis for determining that CAAS accounting for the convertible notes was appropriate, and that any alleged misstatements were made in good faith. To prevail on their claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Lead Plaintiffs would have to establish at trial, among other things, that the Auditor Defendant acted with the state of mind required for a Section 10(b) violation, i.e., at a minimum, with deliberate recklessness. The Auditor Defendant contends that Lead Plaintiffs could make no such showing. Prosecution of the Action This action was commenced on October 25, On February 2, 2012, this Court appointed Robert George, Nancy George, and Randall Whitman as Lead Plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on February 27, In response, Defendant China Automotive and SLF moved to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs claims in their entirety. 4 This Court denied China Automotive s Motion on August 8, See George v. China Auto. Sys., Inc., 11 CIV KBF, 2012 WL (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2012). In its order the Court granted SLF s motion to dismiss and directed Lead Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint only as to SLF adding certain allegations from its briefing that did not appear in the then-operative Complaint. Heeding this Court s directive, Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 20, SLF once again moved to dismiss. This Court denied SLF s motion on September 25, See George v. China Auto. Sys., Inc., 11 CIV KBF, 2012 WL (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2012). Lead Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification on January 15, 2013 and sought certification of a class of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired CAAS common stock, or purchased and/or sold options on CAAS s common stock, from May 12, 2009 and March 17, 2011, both dates inclusive. On March 11, 2013, after taking the depositions of Lead Plaintiffs and obtaining the production of relevant documents in the possession of Lead Plaintiffs, Defendants filed oppositions to Lead Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. On May 7, 2013 the Court heard oral argument on Lead Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification and on May 30, 2013 the Court held an 3 This amount does not include restatements of pre-2008 net income of $225,471 which was reflected as an adjustment to the beginning balance of retained earnings in (2009 Form 10-K/A, pages 84 85) 44 The Individual Defendants did not move to dismiss the Amended Complaint, because they have yet to be served. 5

6 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 6 of 15 evidentiary hearing and further oral argument on Lead Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. On May 31, 2013 the Court ordered that Lead Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification was denied and indicated that a detailed opinion would follow. The Court issued an Order and Opinion denying the Motion for Class Certification on July 3, George v. China Auto. Sys., Inc., 11 CIV KBF, 2013 WL (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2013). On July 17, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal Order Denying Class Certification Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) ( Petition ). On August 1, 2013, the CAAS Defendants filed an Answer in Opposition to Lead Plaintiffs Petition. The Auditor Defendants joined in the CAAS Defendants Answer in its entirety. On August 28, 2013 the Court ordered a stay of proceedings pending the ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Lead Plaintiffs Petition, and if granted, any resulting appeal. On October 24, 2013, the Second Circuit denied Lead Plaintiffs Petition. Merits Discovery and Research Conducted by Lead Counsel Throughout this Action, the Parties have engaged in extensive discovery. In response to written requests by Lead Plaintiffs, the Auditor Defendant produced approximately 140,000 pages of documents, including the production of SLF s CAAS workpapers. Lead Counsel is completing its review of such documents. Lead Counsel also has consulted with damages experts to ascertain the amount of losses suffered by the Class and to analyze the efficiency of the market for CAAS common stock and stock options. Lead Counsel also researched the applicable law with respect to the claims asserted in the Action and the potential defenses thereto. Settlement Negotiations and Mediation This Settlement is the product of extensive discussions and arm s-length settlement negotiations, which began in early On April 10, 2013, the Parties engaged in a full day mediation conference conducted by the Honorable Layn R. Phillips (Ret.), a retired United States District Judge with extensive experience in mediating complex litigation and securities class actions. Prior to this conference, Lead Counsel and Defendants counsel prepared and submitted comprehensive mediation statements to Judge Phillips presenting the Parties respective views about the Action. Following the April 10, 2013 mediation, the Lead Plaintiffs and the Auditor Defendant reached an oral agreement in principle to settle this Action. On April 26, 2013, Lead Plaintiffs advised the Court of a preliminary agreement in principle with the Auditor Defendant pending further negotiation and the Court s approval. Proposed Settlement and Release All capitalized terms used herein have the meanings set forth and defined in the Settlement Stipulation, and you should refer to that document for a full list of definitions. In consideration of the full and final settlement of the Released Plaintiffs Claims, as provided in the Settlement Stipulation, the Auditor Defendant shall pay the Settlement Amount into the Settlement Fund Escrow Account as set forth herein. Within thirty (30) Business Days of Auditor Defendant s Counsel s receipt of all of the following: (a) the signed Preliminary Approval Order entered by the Court preliminarily approving the Settlement; (b) the Settlement Fund Escrow Account wiring instructions; and (c) the tax identification number for the Settlement Fund Escrow Account: (i) the Auditor Defendant shall direct 6

7 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 7 of 15 certain of its insurers to pay by check or wire $1,700,000 (One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars) in cash to the Settlement Fund Escrow Account. In return for the payment of the Settlement Amount, Lead Plaintiffs and Class Members who do not file a request for exclusion from the Class will, upon the Effective Date, on behalf of themselves and any of their personal representatives spouses, domestic partners, trustees, heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, and Lead Plaintiffs Released Parties shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished and discharged all Released Plaintiffs Claims against the Auditor Defendant and any and all of the Auditor Defendant s Released Parties, and shall be forever barred and enjoined from instituting, prosecuting, participating, continuing, maintaining or asserting any Released Plaintiffs Claim, or assisting any Person in instituting, prosecuting, participating, continuing, maintaining or asserting any Released Plaintiffs Claim, against any of the Auditor Defendant s Released Parties, whether directly or indirectly, whether in the United States or elsewhere, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of any other Person, and regardless of whether or not such Class Member executes and delivers the Proof of Claim. As defined in the Settlement Stipulation, Released Plaintiffs Claims means any and all claims (including Unknown Claims as defined in the Proof of Claim and Release and also in the Settlement Stipulation), debts, rights, demands, disputes, suits, matters, damages, issues, liabilities, or causes of action of any kind, nature, and character whatsoever (including but not limited to any claims for damages, interest, attorneys fees, expert or consulting fees, and any and all other costs, expenses or liabilities whatsoever), whether based on federal, state, local, statutory, common or foreign law, or any other law, rule, or regulation, whether fixed or contingent, accrued or unaccrued, liquidated or unliquidated, at law or in equity, matured or unmatured, whether class or individual in nature (collectively, Claims ), including both known Claims and Unknown Claims, (i) that were asserted or could have been asserted against any of the Auditor Defendant s Released Parties or in the Action, (ii) that would have been barred by res judicata had the Action been fully litigated to a final judgment, or (iii) that could have been, or could in the future be, asserted in any forum or proceeding or otherwise by any Class Member against any of the Auditor Defendant s Released Parties (a) that concern, arise out of, refer to, are based upon, or are in related in any way to the allegations, transactions, facts, matters, occurrences, representations, statements, or omissions alleged, involved, set forth, or referred to in the Complaint; and (b) that relate to the purchase, sale, acquisition or holding of CAAS common stock or options; provided, however, that the term Released Plaintiffs Claims shall not include claims to enforce the Settlement. Auditor Defendant s Released Parties means the Auditor Defendant and all entities owned, affiliated or controlled by it, its past or present directors, officers, employees, partners, members, affiliates, predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, divisions, joint ventures, partners, principals, agents, attorneys, auditors, accountants, trustees, advisors, consultants, underwriters, investment bankers, insurers, reinsurers, assigns, spouses, heirs, executors, personal representatives, associates, related or affiliated entities, any members of their Immediate Families, marital communities, or any trusts for which it is trustee, settler or beneficiary, and anyone acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any of them or their successors. In addition, upon the Effective Date, the Auditor Defendant, on behalf of itself and the Auditor Defendant s Released Parties shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished and discharged all Released Auditor Defendant s Claims against Lead Plaintiffs and any and all of the Lead Plaintiffs Released Parties including, but not 7

8 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 8 of 15 limited to, Plaintiffs Counsel. By entering into this Settlement Agreement, the Defendants represent and warrant that they have not assigned, hypothecated, conveyed, transferred or otherwise granted or given any interest in the Released Auditor Defendant s Claims, or any of them, to any other Person. III. PROPOSED PLAN OF ALLOCATION The $1,700,000 Settlement Amount and any interest earned thereon shall be the Gross Settlement Fund. The Gross Settlement Fund less taxes, approved costs, fees and expenses (the Net Settlement Fund ) shall be distributed to members of the Class who submit valid Proofs of Claim ( Authorized Claimants ). The Claims Administrator shall determine each Authorized Claimant s pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based upon each Authorized Claimant s Recognized Loss. The Recognized Loss formula set forth below is not intended to be an estimate of the amount that a Class Member lost or might have been able to recover after a trial; nor is it an estimate of the amount that will be paid to Authorized Claimants pursuant to the Settlement. The Net Recognized Loss formula is simply the basis upon which the Net Settlement Fund will be proportionately distributed to Authorized Claimants. The Plan of Allocation has taken into consideration the Limitation of Damages provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 78u-4(e)), as well as principles articulated by the Supreme Court in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U.S. 366 (2005). Recognized Losses are based on the price declines (on March 17, 2011 and March 21, 2011) following the disclosures on March 17, 2011 and March 18, No loss is recognized when both the purchase and sale of CAAS securities occurred prior to March 17, In determining the Recognized Loss per share, the Lead Counsel considered the declines in the price of CAAS common stock and CAAS stock options on March 17 and 21, 2011, the ability to prove loss causation, and the likelihood of success on the merits. Based on that analysis, the following amounts shall be used for calculation of Recognized Loss for the declines on March 17 and 21, 2011: (a) $1.42 and $0.53 per share, respectively, for CAAS common stock; and (b) with respect to the CAAS options contracts, the amounts set forth in Tables A and B attached hereto. Formula for Calculating Recognized Losses Common Stock For shares of CAAS common stock purchased or otherwise acquired on or after May 12, 2009 through and including March 15, 2011, and: a. sold before March 17, 2011, the Recognized Loss per share is $0; b. sold on March 17, 2011 or March 18, 2011, the Recognized Loss per share is the lesser of (but not less than zero): (i) $1.42 and (ii) the purchase price per share less the sale price per share; and c. held as of the close of trading on March 18, 2011, the Recognized Loss per share is the lesser of (but not less than zero): (i) $1.95 or (ii) the purchase price per share less $8.61 (the closing price on March 21, 2011). 8

9 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 9 of 15 For shares of CAAS common stock purchased or otherwise acquired on March 17, 2011, and: a. sold on March 17, 2011 or March 18, 2011, the Recognized Loss per share is $0; and b. held as of the close of trading on March 18, 2011, the Recognized Loss per share is the lesser of (but not less than zero): (i) $0.53 or (ii) the purchase price per share less $8.61 (the closing price on March 21, 2011). Call Options For publicly traded call options on CAAS common stock purchased or otherwise acquired on or after May 12, 2009 through and including March 15, 2011, and: a. not open at the close of business on March 15, 2011, the Recognized Loss per call option contract is $0; b. closed out on March 17, 2011 or March 18, 2011, the Recognized Loss per option contract is the lesser of: (i) the Loss per Contract in Table A for the date of purchase less the Loss per Contract in Table A for the date of sale (multiplied by 100) and (ii) the price paid for the call option contract less the price on closing of the option (multiplied by 100); and c. open as of the close of business on March 18, 2011, the Recognized Loss per option contract is the lesser of (but not less than zero): (i) the Loss per Contract in Table A for the date of purchase (multiplied by 100) and (ii) the price paid for the call option contract less the holding price in Table A (multiplied by 100). For publicly traded call options on CAAS common stock purchased or otherwise acquired on March 17, 2011, and: a. closed out on March 17, 2011 or March 18, 2011, the Recognized Loss per option contract is $0; and b. open as of the close of business on March 18, 2011, the Recognized Loss per option contract is the lesser of (but not less than zero): (i) the Loss per Contract in Table A for the date of purchase (multiplied by 100) and (ii) the price paid for the call option contract less the holding price in Table A (multiplied by 100). Put Options For publicly traded put options on CAAS common stock written on or after May 12, 2009 through and including March 15, 2011, and: a. not open at the close of business on March 15, 2011, the Recognized Loss per put option contract is $0; 9

10 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 10 of 15 b. closed out on March 17, 2011 or March 18, 2011, the Recognized Loss per option contract is the lesser of: (i) the Loss per Contract in Table B for the date of writing less the Loss per Contract in Table B for the date of closing (multiplied by 100) and (ii) the price paid to close the put option contract less the price on writing of the option (multiplied by 100); and c. open as of the close of business on March 18, 2011, the Recognized Loss per option contract is the lesser of (but not less than zero): (i) the Loss per Contract in Table A for the date of writing (multiplied by 100) and (ii) the holding price in Table A less the price received for the writing the put option contract (multiplied by 100). For publicly traded put options on CAAS common stock written on March 17, 2011, and: a. closed out on March 17, 2011 or March 18, 2011, the Recognized Loss per option contract is $0; and b. open as of the close of business on March 18, 2011, the Recognized Loss per option contract is the lesser of (but not less than zero): (i) the Loss per Contract in Table A for the date of writing (multiplied by 100) and (ii) the holding price in Table A less the price received for the writing the put option contract (multiplied by 100). The Recognized Loss with respect to a purchase or acquisition of a CAAS security (stock or call option, or writing for a put option), is calculated by multiplying the number of units of each such security by the appropriate recognized loss for a single unit of that security, as described above. Profits earned will be subtracted from Recognized Losses, both computed in the manner described above, in order to determine the Net Recognized Loss. To the extent that the Net Settlement Fund is sufficient, each Authorized Claimant will receive an amount equal to the Authorized Claimant s Net Recognized Loss, as defined above. If, however, the Net Settlement Fund is not sufficient to permit such payment, then each Authorized Claimant shall be paid their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based on the percentage of the Net Settlement Fund that each Authorized Claimant s Net Recognized Loss bears to the entire Net Settlement Fund. Payment in this manner shall be deemed conclusive against all Authorized Claimants. General Provisions 1. The date of purchase or sale is the contract or trade date, and not the settlement date. 2. Class Members will receive monies only if they file a timely and valid Proof of Claim. 3. In processing claims, the first-in, first-out basis ( FIFO ) will be applied to purchases and sales. 4. No distribution will be made on a claim where the Authorized Claimant s pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund is less than $ Brokerage commissions, fees and taxes should be excluded from the purchase or sale price of CAAS common stock. 10

11 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 11 of Members of the Class who do not file valid Proofs of Claim will not share in the Net Settlement Fund, yet will nevertheless be bound by the Court s Final Order and Judgment and the Settlement. 7. Shares of CAAS common stock acquired during the Class Period by means of a gift, inheritance or operation of law, do not qualify as the purchase of such shares on the date of such acquisition. If, however, such stock was purchased by the donor, descendent or transferor, then, unless the donor, descendent or transferor submits a Proof of Claim with respect to the shares, the recipient s Recognized Losses will be computed by using the original date of purchase and price of such stock and not the date and price of transfer. 8. Payments pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, as approved by the Court, will be conclusive against all Authorized Claimants. No person shall have any claim against Lead Plaintiffs, Lead Counsel, the Claims Administrator, or any other agent designated by Lead Counsel, based on a distribution made substantially in accordance with the Stipulation and the Plan of Allocation or further Orders of the Court. Defendants, and their counsel, shall have no responsibility for, interest in, or liability whatsoever with respect to any allocation, management, disposition, computation, or distribution of the Settlement Amount. Alteration of Plan of Allocation Subject to the Court s approval, the Plan of Allocation may be altered by Lead Plaintiffs without any further notice to Class Members, unless such Class Members expressly request notice of any alteration of the Plan of Allocation. Therefore, in order to receive such notice, you must send a request no later than twenty-one (21) days prior to the Settlement Hearing to the Claims Administrator by mail at Nancy George, et al. v. China Automotive Systems, Inc., et al., c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 Media, PA 19063, by toll-free phone at , or by visiting the website at The Court also may modify the Plan of Allocation without further notice to the Settlement Class. IV. REQUESTING EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO SHARE IN THE BENEFITS OF THIS SETTLEMENT AND WILL BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS UNLESS YOU EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS. Each member of the Class shall be bound by all determinations and judgments of the Court in connection with the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, unless such Class member shall mail, by first class mail, sufficient postage prepaid, a written request for exclusion from the Class, postmarked no later than twenty-one (21) days prior to the Settlement Hearing, addressed to the Claims Administrator at Nancy George, et al. v. China Automotive Systems, Inc., et al., c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 Media, PA The request for exclusion shall be in a form that sufficiently identifies: (1) the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity seeking exclusion; (2) a list of all transactions involving CAAS common stock and/or options on CAAS common stock during the period of May 12, 2009 to March 17, 2011, including the number of shares, principal amount and trade date of each purchase and sale. A request for exclusion shall not be effective unless submitted 11

12 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 12 of 15 within the time and in the form and manner provided for herein. telephone, , or fax. You cannot exclude yourself by If a person or entity who is a member of the Class duly requests to be excluded from the Class, such person or entity will not be bound by any orders or judgments entered in respect of the Settlement and shall not be entitled to receive any benefits provided by the Settlement in the event it is finally approved by the Court. If a judgment approving the Settlement provided for in the Stipulation is finally entered, all members of the Class who have not requested exclusion shall conclusively be deemed to have released and shall thereafter be barred from asserting any of the Released Plaintiffs Claims against the Released Parties. V. STATEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS SOUGHT If the proposed Settlement is approved, Lead Counsel intend to apply to the Court for an award of attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses from the Settlement Fund. Lead Counsel will seek no more than 30 percent of the Settlement Fund as fees, plus an additional amount not to exceed $275,000 as reimbursement for the expenses and costs actually incurred in prosecuting the action. Lead Counsel believe their intended fee to be fair and reasonable given the benefit achieved for the Class. Lead Counsel have litigated this case on a wholly contingent basis and have not received any compensation during the time this case has been pending. Lead Counsel expended considerable time and expenses during the litigation of this Action, and had the case not been successful, they would have sustained considerable financial loss. In addition, Lead Counsel intend to apply to the Court on behalf the Lead Plaintiffs for reimbursement of their reasonable time, costs and expenses directly relating to their representation of the Class ( Compensatory Award ), which includes their depositions taken by Defendants in connection with the Lead Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. Lead Counsel will seek no more than $5,000 for each of the named Plaintiffs. VI. THE SETTLEMENT HEARING The Settlement Hearing shall be held before the Honorable Katherine B. Forrest, United States District Judge, on, 2014 at, at the courthouse for the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Courtroom 15A, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, New York , for the purpose of determining, among other things,: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Class s claims against Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP (the Auditor Defendant ) for $1,700, should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether the application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys fees and expenses should be approved; (4) whether the Lead Plaintiffs application for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be granted; and (5) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Auditor Defendant as set forth in the Settlement Stipulation filed with the Court. The Settlement Hearing may be adjourned or continued from time to time by the Court without further notice to the Class other than an announcement at such Settlement Hearing or at any adjournment or continuance thereof. 12

13 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 13 of 15 Any member of the Class who does not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class and who objects to the Settlement, the adequacy of the representation provided by the Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel, the proposed Plan of Allocation, the Final Order and Judgment contemplated by the Settlement Stipulation, the application for attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses, and/or the application for a Compensatory Award for the named Plaintiffs, or who otherwise wishes to be heard with respect to any of the foregoing, may appear in person or by attorney at the Settlement Hearing, at their own expense, and present any evidence or argument that may be proper and relevant. However, no person shall be heard, and no papers, briefs, pleadings or other documents submitted by any such person shall be considered by the Court unless, no later than twenty-one (21) days prior to the Settlement Hearing (1) a notice of the person s intention to appear, (2) a statement of such person s objections to any matter before the Court, and (3) the grounds for such objections or the reason for such person s request to appear and to be heard, as well as the information requested in Section IV herein and all other documents and writing which such person desires the Court to consider, shall be filed by such person with the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, New York , and, on or before such filing, shall be delivered by hand, overnight mail or by certified mail, return-receipt requested, sufficient postage prepaid, upon the following counsel of record: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, 600 Third Avenue, New York, NY (Lead Counsel); Lee Dunst, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York (Counsel for the Auditor Defendant). Any person or entity that fails to object in the manner prescribed in the paragraph immediately above shall be deemed to have waived any objections that person or entity may have and shall be barred from raising such objections in this or any other action or proceeding. Objections directed solely to the proposed Plan of Allocation, attorneys fees and expenses, or awards to Lead Plaintiffs will not affect the finality of either the Settlement or the Final Order and Judgment to be entered thereto, if the Settlement is approved by the Court. All members of the Class who do not request exclusion therefrom, in the manner provided herein, will be represented by Lead Counsel in connection with the Settlement, but may, if they so desire, also enter an appearance through counsel of their own choice and at their own expense. VII. PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM To be eligible to receive a cash distribution from the Settlement Fund, you must timely complete, execute and file a Proof of Claim and Release Form ( Proof of Claim ). A Proof of Claim is annexed to this Notice. You may receive more than one copy of this Notice and the Proof of Claim, but you should submit only one Proof of Claim. The Proof of Claim (1) must be completed in accordance with the Instructions on the Proof of Claim, (2) must enclose all documentation required by the Instructions, and (3) must be filed with the Claims Administrator at the following address on or before. [five business days prior to the Settlement Hearing]: Nancy George, et al. v. China Automotive Systems, Inc., et al. c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box

14 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 14 of 15 Media, PA Tel: (866) A Proof of Claim will be deemed filed when mailed, via first-class mail, sufficient postage prepaid. Members of the Class who do not exclude themselves from the Class and who fail to submit a valid and timely Proof of Claim will nevertheless be bound by the Settlement if finally approved, and all orders and judgments entered by the Court in connection therewith. By Order of the Court, the Proof of Claim provides for and requires a Release of all Released Plaintiffs Claims by all members of the Class who file Proofs of Claim. The Release will become effective on the Effective Date of the Settlement. If you would like acknowledgement of the receipt of your Proof of Claim by the Claims Administrator, please send the Proof of Claim by certified mail, return receipt requested, or its equivalent. No other formal acknowledgement will be provided, and you will bear all risks of delay or non-delivery of your claim. VIII. SPECIAL NOTICE TO BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEES Brokerage firms, banks, financial institutions and other nominees ( Nominees ) who, during the Class Period, purchased or sold CAAS common stock, CUSIP 16936R105, in the name of the Nominees on behalf of beneficial owners of such securities who may be members of the Class, are requested to (1) provide a list of the names and addresses of such beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator, preferably in an MS Excel data table setting forth: (a) title/registration, (b) street address, (c) city/state/zip; on electronic mailing labels in MS Word or WordPerfect files (label size Avery #5162; or printed out on physical mailing labels); or (2) send copies of this Notice and Proof of Claim by first class mail to all such beneficial owners, providing written confirmation to the Claims Administrator of having done so. If you choose to mail the Notice yourself, you may obtain (without cost to you) as many additional copies of these documents as you will need to complete the mailing by either downloading a copy from the Claims Administrator s website at (click on Cases and then click on China Automotive Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation ), by contacting the Claims Administrator by mail at: Nancy George, et al. v. China Automotive Systems, Inc., et al., c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 Media, PA 19063, or by toll-free phone at IX. FURTHER INFORMATION This Notice merely provides a brief summary of the litigation and does not describe all of the details of the action or the proposed Settlement. For full details of the matters discussed in this Notice, you may desire to review all of the documents that have been filed with the Court, the Complaint, the Stipulation, the Notice, the Proof of Claim, and Preliminary Order of Approval, the papers filed in support of the Settlement, the applications for an award of attorney fees and expenses for Lead Counsel, and the application for a Compensatory Award for Lead Plaintiffs. These documents may be inspected during business hours, at the office of the Clerk of the Court, United States District 14

15 Case 1:11-cv KBF Document Filed 12/06/13 Page 15 of 15 Court, Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, New York You may review and obtain copies of the Stipulation of Settlement and other relevant documents by contacting Class Counsel at or the Claims Administrator at (click on Cases and then click on CAAS Securities Litigation ). In addition, you may request additional copies of this Notice and Proof of Claim by contacting the Claims administrator at: Nancy George, et al. v. China Automotive Systems, Inc., et al. c/o c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 Media, PA Tel: (866) INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS COUNSEL Dated:, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 15