Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 01/18/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: January 13, 2017

According to the Complaint, this action arises out of a stock and cash transaction by which South Korea-based Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., through its subsidiaries Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Silk Delaware, Inc. (“Merger Sub,” collectively with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., “Samsung”) will acquire each issued and outstanding share of Harman for $112.00 per share in cash (the “Proposed Transaction” or “Merger”). Both companies’ boards of directors have approved the deal.

The Complaint alleges there is strong evidence to indicate that the Proposed Transaction was, in large part, subject to a flawed and tainted process in which the Board negotiated only with Samsung and deliberately chose not to conduct any sort of market check before entering into the merger agreement or attempt to contact a single other potentially interested party during these negotiations. Additionally, the Board quickly relinquished any negotiating leverage it had with Samsung by agreeing to enter into a restrictive exclusivity period.

On January 26, 2017, this case was voluntarily dismissed. A related case filed under Docket 17-CV-00246 in the District of Connecticut continues.

On May 11, 2017, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on July 12.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Consumer Cyclical
Industry: Audio & Video Equipment
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: HAR
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: D. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 17-CV-00046
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 01/13/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/14/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/13/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Brodsky & Smith, LLC
    Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Brodsky & Smith, LLC, PA 19004
    610.667.6200 610.667.6200 ·
  2. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
    919 N. Market Street, Suite 980, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., DE 19803
    302.295.5310 302.295.5310 · info@rigrodskylong.com
No Document Title Filing Date
COURT: D. Connecticut
DOCKET #: 17-CV-00246
JUDGE:
DATE FILED: 07/12/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/14/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 02/15/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Johnson & Weaver LLP
    99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor, Johnson & Weaver LLP, NY 10016
    212.802.1486 212.602.1592 ·
  2. Motley Rice LLC (Hartford)
    One Corporate Center; 20 Church St.; 17th Floor, Motley Rice LLC (Hartford), CT
    860.882.1681 860.882.1681 · inquiry@motleyrice.com
  3. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego)
    655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), CA 92101
    619.231.1058 619.231.7423 ·
No Document Title Filing Date