Transocean Ltd. is an American offshore drilling contractor that owns and/or operate approximately 140 mobile offshore drilling units.

According to a press release dated October 04, 2010, the Complaint in this action alleges that, on October 2, 2007, in advance of a planned shareholder vote regarding the proposed merger of Transocean and GlobalSantaFe, Defendants disseminated a proxy statement to the Class that contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements that were made not misleading in violation of §14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, Transocean is alleged to have misrepresented the quality of its drilling fleet and its safety practices. In fact, as was first revealed by the Deepwater Horizon disaster and its aftermath, Transocean was dramatically underinvesting in safety and exposing itself to a high risk of a catastrophic event. The false proxy induced the Class to approve the merger with Transocean for inadequate consideration, thereby harming the Class.

According to the Order entered on January 7, 2011, the DeKalb-Bricklayers Group was appointed lead Plaintiff in this action, pursuant to Section 21(D)(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 USC § 78u-4(a)(3)(B), as amended by the PSLRA. The Court approved the selection of the law firms Chitwood and Scott+Scott as co-lead Counsel for the Class, pursuant to Section 21 (D)(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 USC § 78u-4(a)(3){B), as amended by the PSLRA. On April 7, 2011, the lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 07, 2011, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York by the lead Plaintiffs against the Defendants.

On March 30, 2012, the Court issued an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by April 16, 2012. On April 16, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint.

On October 4, 2012, the Court issued an order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On March 11, 2013, an Opinion and Order was issued by the Court granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss based on the time bar of statute of repose. Subsequently, the Clerk of Court was directed to close this case.

On May 26, 2016, the USCA for the Second Circuit issued a Mandate affirming the judgment of the District Court.