Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 07/20/2016 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: June 08, 2016

According to the law firm press release, the action arises out of an April 15, 2016 press release announcing that Polycom had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Mitel pursuant to which Mitel would acquire Polycom for $3.12 per share in cash and 1.31 Mitel common shares for each share of Polycom stock, for total consideration of $1.96 billion (the "Proposed Acquisition"). The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all other similarly situated Polycom shareholders (the "Class").

The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder approval of the Proposed Acquisition, the defendants filed a materially false and misleading Proxy Statement with the SEC in violation of the Exchange Act. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be material to Polycom shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Acquisition.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on July 20, 2016.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Communications Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: PLCM
Company Market: NASDAQ
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-03128
JUDGE: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
DATE FILED: 06/08/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/15/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 06/08/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Robbins Arroyo LLP
    600 B Street, Suite 1900, Robbins Arroyo LLP, CA 92101
    619.525.3990 619.525.3991 ·
No Document Title Filing Date