Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/23/2018 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: September 23, 2016

According to a law firm's press release, the Complaint alleges that on June 23, 2016, Full Circle’s Board of Directors caused Full Circle to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the “Merger Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Full Circle will be entitled to elect to receive a special $0.22 dividend per share of Full Circle common stock, as well as shares of Great Elm common stock such that Full Circle stockholders will own approximately 38% of the combined company. The combined company is valued at approximately $190 million, and Full Circle will be valued at approximately $81 million, before the special cash dividend and transaction costs.

The Complaint further alleges that on August 1, 2016, Defendants filed a Form N-14 Registration Statement (the “Registration Statement”) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the Proposed Transaction. According to the Complaint, the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on March 22, 2018.


Sector: Financial
Industry: Other (Mutual Fund)
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: FULL
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: D. Maryland
DOCKET #: 16-CV-03237
JUDGE: Hon. Richard D. Bennett
DATE FILED: 09/23/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/23/2016
  1. Goldman & Minton, P.C.
  2. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available