Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 01/25/2016 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: July 11, 2014

According to the law firm press release, Lionsgate is a film studio that produces and distributes motion pictures, television, home and family entertainment, and digital media. The complaint alleges that by the start of the Class Period, and unbeknownst to investors, Lionsgate was under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) for making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning a series of transactions (“Transactions”) designed to prevent a takeover of the Company by Carl Icahn and his affiliates (“Icahn”). During the Class Period, however, Lionsgate and the other defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the existence of the SEC investigation, the prospect of legal proceedings associated with the misconduct under investigation, and the Company’s exposure to loss in connection therewith.

On March 13, 2014, the SEC issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”), which memorialized the resolution of the investigation and charges against Lionsgate for making false and misleading disclosures regarding the Transactions. As detailed in the Order, and alleged in the complaint, Lionsgate settled the investigation by, among other things, agreeing to pay $7.5 million in fines and acknowledging that it had violated the federal securities laws.

The issuance of the Order exposed Lionsgate’s false and misleading representations and omissions during the Class Period. Specifically, Lionsgate repeatedly represented that it had disclosed all material legal proceedings, when, in fact, it failed to disclose the existence of the SEC investigation and its material risk and exposure to loss. Accordingly, Lionsgate’s public statements regarding its involvement in and exposure to claims and legal proceedings were false and materially misleading when made, and otherwise omitted material information. Indeed, Lionsgate and the other defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the existence of the SEC’s investigation exposed the Company to material risks and uncertainties and exposure to loss, including regulatory proceedings, sanctions and fines.

In response to the publication of the Order on March 13, 2014, the price of Lionsgate common stock declined as the market digested the truth regarding the Company’s exposure, thereby damaging investors. In the lawsuit filed today, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Lionsgate common stock during the Class Period.

This case was dismissed with prejudice on January 22, 2016.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Motion Pictures
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LGF
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: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 14-CV-05197
JUDGE: Hon. Koeltl
DATE FILED: 07/11/2014
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/11/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/13/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  2. Sachs Waldman P.C.
    1423 East Twelve Mile Road, Sachs Waldman P.C., MI 48071
    248.658.0800 313.965.4315 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: S.D. New York
DOCKET #: 14-CV-05197
JUDGE: Hon. Koeltl
DATE FILED: 03/30/2015
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/11/2013
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/13/2014
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (New York)
    One Penn Plaza, 36th Floor, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP (New York), NY 01119
    212.752.5455 212.752.5455 · info@hbsslaw.com
  2. Motley Rice LLC (Hartford)
    One Corporate Center; 20 Church St.; 17th Floor, Motley Rice LLC (Hartford), CT
    860.882.1681 860.882.1681 · inquiry@motleyrice.com
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville)
    58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Melville), NY 11747
    631.367.7100 631.367.1173 ·
  4. Sachs Waldman P.C.
    1423 East Twelve Mile Road, Sachs Waldman P.C., MI 48071
    248.658.0800 313.965.4315 ·
No Document Title Filing Date