Processing your request

please wait...

Case Page


Case Status:    DISMISSED    
On or around 11/04/2017 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)

Filing Date: October 17, 2017

On May 2, 2017, Spark and Affinitas issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into a definitive agreement to combine in a stock-for-stock merger (the “Merger Agreement”) among Spark, Affinitas, New Spark, and Chardonnay Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of New Spark (“Merger Sub”), pursuant to which the parties agreed to combine the businesses of Spark and Affinitas under a holding company, New Spark, organized under the laws of Germany.

The Complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration and the process by which Defendants agreed to consummate the Proposed Transaction are fundamentally unfair to Spark’s public stockholders.

On October 10, 2017, in order to convince Spark’s shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Complaint alleges that Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement (the “Proxy Statement”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Complaint alleges that in particular, the Proxy Statement contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) financial projections for the Company; (ii) the valuation analyses performed by the Company’s financial advisor, B. Riley & Co., LLC (“B. Riley”); and (iii) the background process leading up to the Proposed Transaction.

On November 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice voluntarily dismissing this action.


Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States


Ticker Symbol: LOV
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: C.D. California
DOCKET #: 17-CV-07603
JUDGE: Hon. Andre Birotte Jr
DATE FILED: 10/17/2017
CLASS PERIOD END: 10/17/2017
  1. Monteverde & Associates PC
  2. Monteverde & Associates PC (Culver City)
No Document Title Filing Date
—Reference Complaint Complaint Related Data is not available
—Related District Court Filings Data is not available