Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 10/04/2011 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: February 17, 2011

According to the Company's Form 10-Q For Quarter Ended March 31, 2011, three complaints on behalf of the same putative class of the Company’s stockholders have been filed in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois challenging the Merger Agreement ... On March 4, 2011, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint which names as defendants the Company, Rock-Tenn and the individual members of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Merger Defendants”). The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the consideration agreed to in the Merger Agreement is inadequate and unfair to the Company’s stockholders, that the February 24, 2011 preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus contained misleading or inadequate disclosures regarding the proposed merger, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement and that those breaches were aided and abetted by Rock-Tenn and the Company. The amended complaint seeks equitable relief, including an injunction prohibiting consummation of the Merger Agreement. On April 21, 2011, the Court stayed this consolidated matter pending resolution of the Delaware plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction or until further order of the Court.

On February 17, 2011, a putative class action complaint asserting similar claims was filed against the same defendants and a Rock-Tenn merger subsidiary, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the caption of Dabrowski v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. (the “Illinois-Northern District Complaint”). On April 21, 2011, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging, among other things, that the consideration agreed to in the Merger Agreement is inadequate and unfair to the Company’s stockholders, that the Company and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement and that those breaches were aided and abetted by Rock-Tenn and its merger subsidiary. The plaintiff also alleges that the March 31, 2011 amended joint proxy statement/prospectus contained misleading or inadequate disclosures constituting violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including an injunction prohibiting consummation of the Merger Agreement.

Three complaints on behalf of the same putative class of the Company’s stockholders have been filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the Merger Agreement [...]. On March 24, 2011, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.

According to the docket for the federal securities class action, on August 4, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the action without prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Basic Materials
Industry: Containers & Packaging
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: SSCC
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: N.D. Illinois
DOCKET #: 11-CV-01136
JUDGE: Hon.Joan B. Gottschall
DATE FILED: 02/17/2011
CLASS PERIOD START: 01/23/2011
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/17/2011
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Law Offices of Richard J. Vita (Boston)
    77 Franklin Street, 3rd Floor, Law Offices of Richard J. Vita (Boston), MA 02110
    617.426.6566 ·
  2. Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (Chicago)
    10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (Chicago), IL 60603
    312.377.1181 312.377.1181 ·
  3. Pomerantz LLP (New York)
    600 Third Avenue, Pomerantz LLP (New York), NY 10016
    212.661.1100 212.661.8665 · info@pomerantzlaw.com/
No Document Title Filing Date
No Document Title Filing Date