Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/09/2006 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: June 15, 2005

According to a press release dated April 15, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed a proposed securities fraud class action suit, ruling that the complaint failed to allege the element of economic loss causation as required by § 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In a proposed class action, Rick Hartman, as a shareholder of Pathmark Stores Inc., sued Pathmark and its officers and directors for violations of § § 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint charges that Pathmark and is board of directors provided materially misleading information to shareholders in connection with a Proxy Solicitation seeking shareholder approval of an investment in Pathmark by Yucaipa Partners, LLC. The proxy solicitation was misleading because it failed to inform investors of an alternative cash-out transaction, through which all Pathmark shareholders would receive $8.75 per share, that had been presented to Pathmark's Board of Directors on June 1. This alternative offer represented a greater value than the Yucaipa Transaction which the Board was recommending. The Complaint also alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating with Yucaipa by continuing to recommend that shareholders approve the Yucaipa Transaction even after the alternative offer had been made.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Retail (Grocery)
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PTMK
Company Market: NASDAQ
Market Status: Public (Listed)

About the Company & Securities Data


"Company" information provides the industry and sector classification and headquarters state for the primary company-defendant in the litigation. In general, "Securities" information provides the ticker symbol, market, and market status for the underlying securities at issue in the litigation.

In most cases, the primary company-defendant actually issued the securities that are the subject of the litigation, and the securities information and company information relate to the same entity. In a small subset of cases, however, the primary company-defendant is not the issuer (for example, cases against third party brokers/dealers), and the securities information and company information do not relate to the same entity.
COURT: D. Delaware
DOCKET #: 05-CV-0403
JUDGE: Hon. Joseph J. Farnan Jr.
DATE FILED: 06/15/2005
CLASS PERIOD START: 05/06/2005
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/09/2005
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Berger & Montague PC
    1622 Locust Street, Berger & Montague PC, PA 19103
    800.424.6690 215.875.4604 · investorprotect@bm.net
  2. Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. (Dover)
    11 North State Street, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A. (Dover), DE 19901
    302.674.3841 302.674.5864 · info@prickett.com
No Document Title Filing Date