Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/10/2017 (Date of order of final judgment)

Filing Date: March 09, 2016

According to the law firm press release, the complaint alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (“Recommendation Statement”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 3, 2016 provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction, in violation of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Recommendation Statement fails to provide LeapFrog’s shareholders with material information concerning the financial and procedural fairness of the Proposed Transaction.

Furthermore, according to the complaint, the Merger Agreement includes a non-solicitation provision, a matching rights provisions, and a $2.9 million termination fee which essentially ensure that a superior bidder will not emerge, as any potential suitor will undoubtedly be deterred from expending the time, cost, and effort of making a superior proposal while knowing that VTech can easily foreclose a competing bid.

On May 9, 2017, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Recreational Products
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LF
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. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-01161
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Orrick
DATE FILED: 03/09/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/05/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/03/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (Los Angeles)
    10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    (424) 256-2884 (424) 256-2885 ·
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: N.D. California
DOCKET #: 16-CV-01161
JUDGE: Hon. William H. Orrick
DATE FILED: 02/13/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/05/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/03/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (Los Angeles)
    10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (Los Angeles), CA 90067
    (424) 256-2884 (424) 256-2885 ·
No Document Title Filing Date