Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 09/19/2017 (Stipulation and order of dismissal (voluntary dismissal))

Filing Date: August 17, 2017

According to the Complaint, on July 31, 2017, CDI's Board of Directors (the "Board" or "Individual Defendants") caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Nova commenced a tender offer (the "Tender Offer") to acquire all of CDI's outstanding stock for $8.25 per share in cash. The Tender Offer is currently set to expire on September 12, 2017. Following the consummation of the Tender Offer and subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the applicable conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

On August 14, 2017, defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (the "Solicitation Statement") with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), which recommends that CDI's stockholders approve the Proposed Transaction and tender their shares in the Tender Offer. The Complaint alleges the Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading.

On September 5, 2017, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases.

On September 19, 2017, this case was voluntarily dismissed pursuant to a Stipulation by the parties.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: CDI
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: E.D. Pennsylvania
DOCKET #: 17-CV-03700
JUDGE: Hon. MARK A. KEARNEY
DATE FILED: 08/17/2017
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/31/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 08/17/2017
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 ·
No Document Title Filing Date