Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/11/2012 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: August 29, 2011

According to a press release dated August 30, 2011, the defendant Company, its general partner, certain of its officers and/or directors violated sections the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a proposed merger.

The action arises from a joint announcement that the Company had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with the bidder company whereby the bidder will acquire all the outstanding publicly held units of the Company it does not already own. The complaint alleges that on August 2, 2011, defendants jointly issued a materially false and misleading Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the “Proxy”). The complaint further alleges that the Proxy, which recommends that Encore unitholders vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, omits and/or misrepresents information that is material to the impending decision of the Company’s unitholders whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger in violation of §14(a) of the 1934 Act.
The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all unitholders who held Company units during the period beginning July 11, 2011 through and including the closing of the proposed acquisition.

On April 24 2012, the Court issued an order denying putative plaintiff Donald A. Hysong’s motion to be appointed lead plaintiff.

On May 15, 2012, Herman Goldstein filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 11, 2012, the Court issued an order granting the Notice and dismissing this action without prejudice.


Sector: Energy
Industry: Oil & Gas Operations
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: ENP
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: S.D. Texas
DOCKET #: 11-CV-03198
JUDGE: Hon.Gray H. Miller
DATE FILED: 08/29/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/29/2011
  1. Edison, McDowell & Hetherington LLP

  2. Kendall Law Group, LLP
    3232 McKinney, Ste 700, Kendall Law Group, LLP, TX 75204
    214.744.3000 214.744.3000 ·
  3. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
    30 Broad Street, 15 1h Floor, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, NY 10004
    212.363.7500 212.363-7171 ·
  4. Powers Taylor LLP

  5. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
  6. The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC
    The Preston Commons, 8117 Preston Road, Suite 300, The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, TX 75255
    214.706.9314 214.706.9315 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available