Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 08/24/2011 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: July 05, 2011

According to the Complaint filed July 5, 2011, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached fiduciary duties and violated Federal Securities laws during a proposed merger. On February 23, 2011, the company announced a proposed acquisition whereby the acquiring company would attain all outstanding publically held units in a stock-for-stock merger. The total cash value of the merger was approximately $42 per unit for the company’s unit holders. The acquiring company qualified as a “Group Member” under the target company’s limited partnership agreement.

The plaintiffs claim that the individual defendants did not hire a financial advisor to evaluate the proposal until after the announcement, despite knowing about the pending offer. During the course of the next two months, the defendants evaluated the proposed offer and decided to propose a counteroffer to the acquiring company seeking a higher exchange rate. The acquiring company rejected the initial counteroffer and any subsequent attempts at negotiation. According to the Plaintiff’s complaint, despite these events, on April 26, 2011, the defendants issued a statement that the original offer was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the company’s unit holders. The defendants subsequently approved the merger agreement. In drafting its S-4 statement detailing the reasons for entering the merger agreement, the defendants failed to disclose certain analyses generated by its investment banker concerning the acquiring company’s valuation.

The plaintiffs allege that the relationship between the target and acquiring company coupled with the unfair price violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9. Further, the complaint alleges violations of Exchange Act Section 20(a) for the absent analyses of the target company’s investment banker.

On August 23, 2011, the parties agreed to a stipulation to dismiss this action without prejudice. On the next day, the Court issued an Order dismissing this action.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Utilities
Industry: Natural Gas Utilities
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DEP
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.
COURT: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 11-CV-02486
JUDGE: Hon. Sim Lake
DATE FILED: 07/05/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/23/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 07/05/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Goldfarb Branham LLP
    2501 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1801, Goldfarb Branham LLP, TX 75201
    (214) 583 2233 (214) 583 2234 ·
  2. Kendall Law Group, LLP
    3232 McKinney, Ste 700, Kendall Law Group, LLP, TX 75204
    214.744.3000 214.744.3000 ·
  3. Robbins Umeda LLP (Former San Diego Address)
    610 West Ash Street, Suite 1800, Robbins Umeda LLP (Former San Diego Address), CA 92101
    619.525.3990 619.525.3990 · info@robbinsumeda.com
No Document Title Filing Date