On or around 10/26/2011 (Court's order of dismissal)
Filing Date: January 18, 2011
According to the complaint filed January 18, 2011, the Proposed Transaction is at a grossly inadequate and unfair price and was arrived at by an unfair and tainted process that was intended to provide valuable assets of AirTran to defendants for unfair and inadequate consideration. Defendants have acted together, in concert, or in conspiracy to the detriment of the Company and in breach of the Director Defendants' fiduciary duties to AirTran.
On November 19, 2010, Defendants filed a registration statement on Form S-4 (the "Proxy") with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the Proposed Acquisition pursuant to which, inter alia, the AirTran Board of Directors recommended that AirTran stockholders vote "FOR" the approval and adoption of the Merger Agreement and in favor of the Proposed Acquisition at a shareholder vote to be scheduled. I connection with the Proxy, Defendants have breached their duty of candor by failing to disclose material information (as described below) to Proxy shareholders necessary for them to determine whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition.
On February 9, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to stay, which was granted on May 16, 2011. The defendants filed a motion to lift the stay and motion to dismiss on September 16, 2011, which was granted on October 26, 2011. The Clerk's Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants that same day. The action is now dismissed with prejudice.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Airtran Holdings, Inc.
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: AAI
Company Market: New York SE
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.
First Identified Complaint
William Nesbit, et al. v. Robert L. Fornaro, et al.
COURT: D. Nevada
DOCKET #: 11-CV-00092
JUDGE: Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr.
DATE FILED: 01/18/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/26/2010
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/18/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd. 1601 S. Rain tow Blvd., Suite 160, Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd., NV 89146 702-853-5490 702-227-1975 ·
Bull & Lifshitz 18 East 41st St., Bull & Lifshitz, NY 10017 212.213.6222 212.213.9405 ·
First Identified Complaint (FIC) Filings:
Class Action Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
Judgment In A Civil Case
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
Related District Court Filings
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available