Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/07/2016 (Other)

Filing Date: August 03, 2016

According to the Complaint, it is allegedDefendants have violated Sections of the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading joint Proxy Statement pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Proxy”) filed on Form S-4 with the SEC on June 6, 2016 and amended twice on July 8 and July 25, 2016. The Proxy recommends that TiVo stockholders vote in favor of approving a proposed transaction (the “Proposed Transaction”) whereby Rovi will acquire TiVo for $10.70 per share in cash and stock. Specifically, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information by failing to disclose the unlevered, after-tax free cash flow projections for TiVo and Rovi as used in each of the discounted cash flow (“DCF”) analyses performed by LionTree Advisors LLC (“LionTree”), the Company’s financial advisor, and Evercore Group L.L.C. (“Evercore”), Rovi’s financial advisor. Additionally, as it relates to LionTree and its affiliates and Evercore and its affiliates, the Proxy also fails to disclose the specific services rendered to Rovi by LionTree and Evercore during the preceding two years and the fees for such services rendered.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on August 24, 2016.


Sector: Services
Industry: Broadcasting & Cable TV
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: TIVO
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-04367
JUDGE: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
DATE FILED: 08/03/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/03/2016
  1. Levi & Korsinsky (Los Angeles)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available