According to the Complaint, on November 18, 2013 Star Scientific filed a Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A
(the “Proxy”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in connection with the Shareholder Vote on six Company proposals. In the Proxy, the Star Scientific board of directors (the “Board” or “Individual Defendants”) recommends that Star Scientific’s public shareholders vote to approve two amendments to the Company’s 2008 Incentive Award Plan (the “Plan”) to, (a) increase the number of shares available for issuance thereunder by 18,300,000 shares and (b) to increase the maximum number of shares of common stock that can be issued to any one participant in any one calendar year from 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 (“Proposal 4”).
The Complaint alleges that the Proxy, with regard to Proposal 4 violates the “unbundling rules” promulgated by the SEC. It is also alleged that the Proxy contains several material disclosure violations regarding the reasons for, consideration and effects of Proposal 4, including how, and at what rate, the Plan may dilute Star Scientific’s public shareholders.
On January 8, 2014, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) the Plaintiff dismissed this action with prejudice, and without prejudice to any other individual or class claim in this action.