On or around 05/06/2014 (Court's order of dismissal)
Filing Date: March 28, 2012
According to the law firm press release, Dynegy and individual defendants are charged with violations of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants knew or recklessly failed to inform investors that Dynegy’s wholly-owned subsidiary fraudulently transferred direct ownership in one of Dynegy’s indirectly owned subsidiaries directly to Dynegy.
On March 9, 2012, a bankruptcy examiner disclosed that Dynegy improperly acquired direct ownership of the indirectly owned subsidiary through a fraudulent transfer. This news caused Dynegy stock to drop approximately 35% by the close of the business day.
On November 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed their amended class action complaint.
On April 30, 2014, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss and thereby dismissing the plaintiffs’ Amended Class Action Complaint. The Clerk was directed to enter a judgment dismissing this action, close the case, and close all pending motions.
On June 25, 2015, the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming the above judgment of the District Court.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Dynegy, Inc.
Industry: Electric Utilities
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: DYN
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.