On or around 12/14/2016 (Court's order of dismissal)
Filing Date: October 20, 2016
According to the Complaint, on September 2, 2016, the Board caused Accuride to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the “Merger Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger, Accuride will merge with and into Armor Merger Sub Corp. (“Merger Sub”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Armor Parent Corp. (“Parent” and together with Merger Sub, “Armor”), Merger Sub’s sole shareholder, and an affiliate of Crestview. Accuride will continue as the surviving corporation.
The Complaint alleges defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Schedule 14A Proxy Statement (the “Proxy”) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on September 30, 2016. The Proxy is deficient and misleading in that it fails to provide adequate disclosure of all material information related to the Proposed Transaction.
Pursuant to a Stipulation by the parties, this case was ordered dismissed on December 14, 2016.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Accuride Corporation
Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Auto & Truck Parts
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: ACW
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.
First Identified Complaint
Charlene Jones, et al. v. Accuride Corporation, et al.
COURT: S.D. Indiana
DOCKET #: 16-CV-00210
JUDGE: Hon. Richard L. Young
DATE FILED: 10/20/2016
CLASS PERIOD START: 09/02/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/20/2016
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
Levi & Korsinsky (Stamford)
Riley Williams & Piatt, LLC
First Identified Complaint (FIC) Filings:
Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Sections 14(a) And 20(a) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934
Stipulation to Dismiss as Moot and Retaining Jurisdiction to Determine Plaintiff's Counsel's Potential Application for Fees and Expenses
Order Granting Stipulation To Dismiss Action As Moot And Retaining Jurisdiction To Determine Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Potential Application For Fees And Expenses
U.S. District Court Civil Docket
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
Related District Court Filings
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available