Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 06/03/2016 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: November 25, 2013

According to the Complaint, on October 10, 2013, Regency and the Partnership announced that, along with certain of affiliates, they had entered into a definitive agreement and plan of merger dated October 9, 2013 under which Regency, through Merger Sub, will acquire all of the outstanding units of PVR in a mixed cash and unit transaction (the “Proposed Transaction”).

On November 8, 2013, Regency filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement (“Registration Statement”) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in support of the Merger. The Registration Statement contained the joint proxy statement of the Partnership and Regency’s support of the merger. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement fails to provide the Partnership’s unitholders with material information or provides them with materially misleading information thereby rendering unitholders unable to make an informed decision on whether to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction.

On March 24, 2014, there was an Order Consolidating Related Actions, Appointing Lead Plaintiff, And Approving Lead Plaintiff's Selection Of Co-Lead And Co-Liaison Counsel.

This case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on June 3, 2016.


Sector: Energy
Industry: Coal
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: PVR
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: E.D. Pennsylvania
DOCKET #: 13-CV-06829
JUDGE: Hon. Harvey Bartle, III
DATE FILED: 11/25/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 11/25/2013
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC
  2. WeissLaw LLP
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available