November 25, 2020 - The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
December 5, 2019 - A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed.
September 26, 2019 - An amended complaint was filed.
May 20, 2019 - An investor in shares of Dynagas LNG Partners LP (NYSE: DLNG) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by Dynagas LNG Partners LP in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements made between February 16, 2018 and March 21, 2019.
Monaco based Dynagas LNG Partners LP, through its subsidiaries, operates in the seaborne transportation industry worldwide. On November 15, 2018, Dynagas LNG Partners LP announced that two of its vessels entered extended charter contracts at lower rates compared with prior charter contracts. Then, on January 25, 2019, Dynagas LNG Partners LP announced a 75% cut to its global distribution “in order to retain more of the cash generated from the Partnership’s long term contracts to maintain a steady cash balance.”
On March 21, 2019, Dynagas LNG Partners LP announced its fourth quarter and full year financial results. Dynagas LNG Partners LP reported that its annual Total Revenue declined from $138.99 million in 2017 to $127.13 million in 2018 and that its Net Income declined from $17.33 million in 2017 to $3.61 million in 2018. Shares of Dynagas LNG Partners LP (NYSE: DLNG) declined from $17.90 per share on April 17, 2017 to as low as $1.95 per share on May 20, 2019.
According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges on behalf of purchasers of Dynagas LNG Partners LP (NYSE: DLNG) common shares between February 16, 2018 and March 21, 2019, that the defendants violated Federal Securities Laws. More specifically, the plaintiff claims that between February 16, 2018 and March 21, 2019, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company’s new three year charter agreement with Statoil was not a continuation of its current contract but a new agreement with reduced revenue, that, as a result of the reduced revenue, the Company’s distribution was not sustainable, that the Company’s ability to generate cash flow long term did not support its distribution levels, and that as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.