Case Page

 

Case Status:    SETTLED
On or around 07/18/2017 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: May 11, 2016

According to the law firm press release, on April 11, 2016, the Company announced it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which Annaly would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Hatteras through a tender offer (the "Tender Offer"). Following the Tender Offer, if more than two-thirds of the outstanding Hatteras common stock (including Hatteras shares owned by Annaly and its subsidiaries) had been tendered, Hatteras would be merged with and into an Annaly subsidiary in a "second-step" merger under the Maryland General Corporation Law, which would permit completion of the Merger without a shareholder vote if Annaly acquired the minimum two-thirds of Hatteras outstanding stock.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was unanimously approved by the Board, Hatteras shareholders could choose one of the following considerations: (1) $5.55 in cash and 0.9894 shares of Annaly common stock; (2) $15.85 in cash; or (3) 1.5226 shares of Annaly common stock. The complaint points out that, although Defendants touted that the Offer Price represented a premium of about 24% percent to the Company's 60-day volume-weighted average price of Hatteras' stock, Hatteras stock was trading over the consideration six months prior and was reaching a high of over $18.00 for nearly all of 2015.

The complaint alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement ("14d-9") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on May 5, 2016 provided 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 14d-9 failed to provide Hatteras' shareholders with material information concerning the financial and procedural fairness of the Proposed Transaction.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on May 4, 2017. The Settlement was preliminarily approved on July 3, 2017.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Real Estate Operations
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HTS
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: M.D. North Carolina
DOCKET #: 16-CV-00445
JUDGE: Hon. THOMAS D. SCHROEDER
DATE FILED: 05/11/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 04/11/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 05/11/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Ward Black Law
    208 W. Wendover Avenue, Ward Black Law, NC 27401
    336.333.2244 336.379.9415 ·
No Document Title Filing Date