Gas Natural Inc. Securities Litigation

On October 8, 2016, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of merger, to be acquired by FR Bison Holdings, Inc. ("Parent") through its wholly-owned subsidiary, FR Bison Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"). Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of First Reserve Energy Infrastructure Fund II, L.P. (First Reserve) and were formed by First Reserve in order to acquire the Company. Subject to the terms and conditions of the merger agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company and theCompany will continue as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. Shareholders will receive $13.10 in cash without interest and less any applicable withholding taxes, for each share of common stock, $0.15 par value per share, of the Company that they own immediately prior to the effective time of the merger.

See Case Details »

Northstar Asset Management Group, Inc. Securities Litigation

According to a law firm press release, the complaint alleges despite NorthStar being well-positioned to generate significant earnings in the foreseeable future, the company's board has agreed to combine NorthStar with two weaker entities. Pursuant to the terms of the definitive merger agreement, NorthStar common stockholders will receive one share of their respective class of stock in the post-merger combined company, Colony NorthStar, Inc. The complaint alleges that the merger consideration is unfair to NorthStar common stockholders because they receive no premium for their shares. If the transaction is completed, NorthStar's executives will receive significant amounts in executive compensation.

See Case Details »

Avid Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation (2016)

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Avid Technology made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business, operations, earnings, and financial prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period Avid knew but failed to disclose that because it had not launched all the enterprise level features for its new NEXIS solution product offerings, its enterprise customers were deferring renewals and purchases. The complaint alleges that on November 9, 2016, after the close of trading, Avid suddenly disclosed that both its 3Q16 bookings and revenues had come in considerably lower than the Company had led the investment community to expect, blaming "the transition of the storage product line" and disclosing that "some existing enterprise clients deferred normal upgrade and renewal decisions and new customers postponed investments until the release of functionality targeted to the enterprise market." The complaint alleges that on this news, the Company's stock price plummeted 28% on November 10, 2016, on unusually high trading volume.

See Case Details »

Agria Corporation Securities Litigation (2016)

According to the law firm press release, the lawsuit alleges Defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants engaged in trading to artificially inflate Agria's stock price in order to meet NYSE's continuing listing standards and avoid delisting from the NYSE; (2) Agria lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements about Agira's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

See Case Details »

Opus Bank Securities Litigation

According to the law firm press release, the complaint filed in this action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that certain of the Company's loans were of poor quality; (2) that the Company was over-representing the quality of the loans to the public; (3) that, as such, the Company failed to properly account for the loans in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) that, as a result, the Company would be forced to recognize large charge-offs associated with the loans; (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and financial reporting; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Opus's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

See Case Details »