THE LITIGATION Clause Samples
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 1 times
THE LITIGATION. A. The Action is currently pending before the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and was brought on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Trinity common stock between February 16, 2012 and April 24, 2015, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were damaged thereby. The initial complaint was filed on April 27, 2015. On March 8, 2016, the Court appointed ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Pipefitters, the UA Fund, and New Jersey as Lead Plaintiffs and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇ LLP, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ LLP, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ LLP as Lead Counsel. On May 11, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (“Complaint”), which alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements to investors regarding changes made in 2005 to Trinity’s ET-Plus guardrail system, and that such statements artificially inflated Trinity’s stock price.
B. From the outset of the Action, Defendants have denied all of these allegations and consistently maintained that they never made any statement to the market that was false or misleading, nor did they ever direct anyone to make public statements that were false or misleading. Defendants believed at the time and still believe that, during the Class Period and at all other times, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s public statements were truthful, accurate, and not misleading, and that Plaintiffs cannot prove any element of securities fraud, including, but not limited to, falsity, scienter, and loss causation.
C. On June 14, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to stay and administratively close proceedings pending Trinity’s appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of a related qui tam judgment in United States ex rel. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Trinity Industries, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-0089- JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“Harman”). Judge ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ denied Defendants’ motion to stay on July 5, 2016. On August 18, 2016, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint on behalf of: (i) ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇; and (ii) ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. On October 4, 2016, Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Defendants’ motions, and Defendants filed their reply briefs on November 18, 2016. On March 13, 2017, the Court sua sponte reconsidered its previous denial of Defendants’ motion to stay, granted that motion, and administratively closed proceedings pending the Fifth Circuit’s decision in the related ...
THE LITIGATION. The Action is currently pending before the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇.▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, III in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”) and is brought on behalf of a proposed class of: (i) all persons who held stock in Orbital Sciences Corporation (“Orbital Sciences”) as of December 16, 2014 and exchanged shares of Orbital Sciences stock for shares of Orbital ATK common stock on or around February 9, 2015 in connection with the merger between Alliant Techsystems Inc. (“Alliant”) and Orbital Sciences2; and/or (ii) all persons who purchased Orbital ATK common stock between May 28, 2015 and August 9, 2016, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The initial complaint was filed on August 12, 2016. On November 10, 2016, the Court appointed Pension Trust as Lead Plaintiff and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇ LLP as Lead Counsel. On April 24, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed its Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (“Complaint”), which added Wayne County as named plaintiff and alleged violations of §§10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The named defendants in the Complaint were Orbital ATK, ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇. As to the §14(a) claim, the Complaint alleged that the Joint Proxy Statement issued by Alliant and Orbital Sciences and signed by Defendants D. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on 2 Orbital Sciences and Alliant merged on February 9, 2015 (the “Merger”), at which time Orbital Sciences shareholders were issued Alliant stock, and Alliant, the surviving entity, changed its name to Orbital ATK. December 17, 2014, which was used to solicit shareholder approval of the Merger, contained materially false and misleading statements regarding, inter alia: (a) Alliant’s historical financial results, (b) the performance of Alliant’s $2.3 billion Lake City Contract, and (c) Alliant’s internal controls because the statements omitted to disclose, inter alia, that Alliant’s financial results were materially misstated, that the Lake City Contract was operating at an approximately $375 million loss, and that Alliant suffered material weaknesses in internal controls. The Complaint further stated that the alleged false and misleading statements caused Alliant to be overvalued and impacted the exchange ratio to the detriment of Orbital Sciences shareholders, depriving certain members of the Class of their right to a fully informed shareholder vote and inducing them to vote their shares ...
THE LITIGATION. 21 On June 13, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint asserting violations of 22 their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and their rights under California 23 state law, arising from a mass arrest which occurred on November 5, 2010. The 150 24 Class Members were arrested during a march protesting police misconduct and the 25 sentencing of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, the BART officer convicted in the death of ▇▇▇▇▇
THE LITIGATION. The initial complaint in this case, entitled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys.
THE LITIGATION. On November 23, 2015, the action entitled Nallagonda v. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03562-PX, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division, on behalf of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. (“Osiris” or the “Company”) securities between May 12, 2014 and November 16, 2015, both dates inclusive. The action alleged violations of the federal securities laws and sought remedy under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Named as defendants were Osiris, Lode ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Law and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. Two days later, on November 25, 2015 the action entitled ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ v. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-3290-JGK, was filed in the same court on behalf of a class of investors who purchased securities of Osiris between May 12, 2014 and November 20, 2015. The ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ action named identical defendants and alleged identical claims for violations of federal securities laws. On February 1, 2016, the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Motions asking the Court to appoint Lead Plaintiff and to approve Lead Plaintiff’s selection of lead counsel were filed on January 22, 2016, and a hearing on those motions was held on March 21, 2016 before the Honorable J. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇. The Court entered an order granting investor ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ motion and denying the competing motion. Accordingly, on March 21, 2016, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ was appointed as the Lead Plaintiff and the Court approved Lead Plaintiff’s selection of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ LLP as Lead Counsel and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, P.C. as Liaison Counsel. On October 24, 2017, the Nallagonda case was reassigned from Judge ▇▇▇▇ to the ▇▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇. Judge Xinis held a status conference on November 1, 2017 at which counsel for the parties sought a delay of proceedings to permit them to engage in mediation with the goal of attempting to resolve this matter. The Court ordered and received several Joint Status reports between November 2017 and March 28, 2018 when counsel for Osiris and Lead Plaintiff informed the Court that after months of arms-length negotiations, a settlement in principal had been achieved. On April 6, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws ...
THE LITIGATION. 28 This Action began with the filing of multiple initial securities class action complaints in 1 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: (1) by Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ 2 on December 18, 2015; (2) by Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on December 23, 2015; and (3) by 3 Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on December 31, 2015. These initial complaints named KaloBios 4 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“KaloBios”), ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ (“▇▇▇▇▇”) as defendants. Each 5 complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 6 (the “Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder 7 by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, alleging that 8 Defendants made material misstatements and omissions concerning ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s business 9 operations and prospects between November 19, 2015 and December 16, 2015. Defendant 10 ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ denies the allegations in these complaints.
THE LITIGATION. On January 5, 2024, ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ filed suit against Navvis in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri alleging that, on or around July 25, 2023, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ learned of a data security incident impacting highly sensitive information stored on its network, with such incident occurring between July 12, 2023, and July 25, 2023 (the “Incident”). See ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, et al.
THE LITIGATION. In approximately April 2022, ACTS experienced a cybersecurity attack that potentially exposed the personally identifiable information (“PII”), including but not limited to names, Social Security numbers, and financial account and routing numbers (the “Data Security Incident”), of a number of individuals, including some of its current and former employees. ACTS began notifying Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class about the Data Security Incident in approximately July 2022. On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff ▇▇▇▇▇, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed an action against ACTS in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Corra v.
THE LITIGATION. On and after April 21, 2008, two lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) as putative securities class actions on behalf of all Persons who purchased the securities of Credit Suisse Group (“CSG”) during the period between February 15, 2007 and April 14, 2008, inclusive. These actions were consolidated for all purposes into the Action by Order dated June 23, 2008. On July 7, 2008, the Court entered Plaintiffs’ Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Appointment of Lead Plaintiffs and Approval of Selection of Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”) on October 21, 2008. The Complaint alleged violations of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and §20(a) of the Exchange Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, which motion was opposed by Lead 1 Capitalized terms shall have the meaning set forth in Part IV.1. herein.
THE LITIGATION. The Litigation is pending before the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. Burroughs in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Court”). On February 25, 2022, the City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust filed a securities class action complaint in the Court titled City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and