Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 05/26/2017 (Stipulation and order of dismissal (voluntary dismissal))

Filing Date: March 17, 2017

According to the Complaint, on February 2, 2017, the Board caused Ultratech to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the “Merger Agreement”). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, stockholders of Ultratech will receive $21.75 per share in cash and 0.2675 of a share of Parent common stock for each Ultratech common share. Based on Veeco’s closing stock price on February 1, 2017, the merger consideration is valued at approximately $28.64 per share.

On March 13, 2017, defendants filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement (the “Proxy Statement”) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint alleges the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading .

Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, this case was ordered dismissed on May 26, 2017.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Technology
Industry: Semiconductors
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: UTEK
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 #: 17-CV-01468
JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
DATE FILED: 03/17/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 02/02/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 03/17/2017
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Levi & Korsinsky (San Francisco)
    44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650, Levi & Korsinsky (San Francisco), CA 94104
    (415) 291-2420 (415) 484-1294 ·
  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
  3. RM Law, P.C.
    1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112, RM Law, P.C., PA 19312
    (484) 324-6800 ·
No Document Title Filing Date