On or around 04/08/2011 (Stipulation and order of dismissal (voluntary dismissal))
Filing Date: January 18, 2011
According to the complaint filed January 18, 2011, on December 20, 2010, the LaserCard Board of Directors (the "Board") announced that the Company had entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") that contemplates that Purchaser, a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of ASSA, will acquire the Company for $6.25 per share in cash, for a total value of approximately $80 million (the "Transaction").
Upon consummation of the Transaction, LaserCard will become part of ASSA ABLOY'S HID Global business ("HID").
In connection with the proposed transaction, the Individual Defendants filed a materially false and misleading Schedule 14D-9 (described below) recommending that the public shareholders of LaserCard tender their shares in the offer, in breach of the Individual Defendants' fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders both with respect to price and process. The Merger Agreement will also significantly benefit certain LaserCard insiders to the detriment of Plaintiff and the Class.
On March 21, 2011, the Court issued an order relating similar cases to the main action.
On April 8, 2011, the Court dismissed this case without prejudice, with all parties waiving all rights of appeal by Stipulation of the parties.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Lasercard Corporation
Industry: Computer Storage Devices
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: LCRD
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.