According to the Complaint, it is alleged that in proxy statements issued by the defendants, including the the April 19th Notice
of Shareholders Annual meeting, (the “April 19th 2017 Proxy”) and the subsequent July 31, 2017 (the “July 2017 Proxy”), Defendants misrepresented material facts concerning (1) the true value of Broadsmart, which was acquired in early 2016, and was grossly impaired financially (2) the true future prospects of Broadsmart were misstated and inaccurate in an effort which, combines, allowed three (3) the Individual Defendants to conceal material issues so that they could entrench themselves on magicJack’s Board of Director's and (4) plunder the company by manipulating facts to obtain unwarranted compensation in connection with their attempt to sell the Company and extract compensation which, but for the misstatements of the combined Proxy Statements would not have been possible.
On November 8, 2017, the Court issued an Order appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on January 2, 2018. On February 16, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended Complaint. On August 9, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint on August 20. On August 31, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the second amended Complaint. On November 21, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed a notice appealing the Court's Order of Dismissal on December 20, 2018. On February 7, 2019, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal due to a procedural issue. On March 20, the Court of Appeals reinstated the appeal.