Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 03/13/2017 (Court's order of dismissal)

Filing Date: January 09, 2017

According to the law firm press release, on November 3, 2016, Lattice entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with Canyon Bridge. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Lattice shareholders will receive $8.30 per share in cash (the “Proposed Transaction”).

The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, on December 28, 2016, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Preliminary Proxy Statement (the “Proxy Statement”) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that Lattice stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omitted material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect to Lattice’s financial projections, the opinions and analyses of Lattice’s financial advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Lattice common stock.

This case was voluntarily dismissed on March 13, 2017.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: LSCC
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. Oregon
DOCKET #: 17-CV-00035
JUDGE: Hon. Michael H. Simon
DATE FILED: 01/09/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 11/03/2016
CLASS PERIOD END: 01/09/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. 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
  2. RM Law, P.C.
    1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112, RM Law, P.C., PA 19312
    (484) 324-6800 ·
  3. Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Schlachter
    209 South West Oak Street, Stoll, Stoll, Berne, Lokting & Schlachter, OR 97204
    503.227.1600 503.227.6840 · info@ssbls.com
No Document Title Filing Date