On or around 10/12/2017 (Other)
Filing Date: July 19, 2016
According to the Complaint, Skullcandy is a lifestyle-driven audio brand fusing technology with a passion for action sports, fashion, and music. Inspiration for the brand was developed from a chairlift in Park City, Utah. The company is still headquartered there today, and its offices and culture very much embrace the action sports lifestyle. Skullcandy products are sold in more than 70 countries worldwide and consist primarily of headphones and earbuds as well as speaker docks, mobile device cases, and apparel. The company began trading publicly in July 2011.
The Complaint alleges that Skullcandy’s board forced through a sale of the Company in order to reap personal benefits they negotiated with the Buyer to the detriment of Skullcandy’s public stockholders. The Complaint further alleges that the Board pushed through a merger pursuant to which the Buyer plans to acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of Skullcandy common stock through an all-cash tender offer (the “Tender Offer”) followed by a second-step merger (the “Proposed Transaction”). The Buyer has offered Skullcandy investors $5.75 per share in cash, or a total of approximately $177 million (the “Offer Price” or “Merger Consideration”). The Agreement and Plan of Merger, is dated June 23, 2016.
This case was voluntarily dismissed as moot on November 9, 2016. Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses on December 29. The Court denied the Motion on June 14, 2017. Plaintiff filed a Notice appealing this decision on July 14. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Appeal on October 12.
Company & Securities Information
Defendant: Skullcandy, Inc.
Industry: Computer Peripherals
Headquarters: United States
Ticker Symbol: SKUL
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.