Case Page

 

Case Status:    ONGOING    
On or around 09/20/2018 (Ongoing date of last review)

Filing Date: September 19, 2018

According to the Complaint, Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. ("Dun & Bradstreet" or the "Company") is a provider of business information and technology solutions, which help its customers reduce credit risk, manage business relationships, and collect cash and receivables. The Company’s databases include information regarding both public and private companies around the world.

On July 26, 2018, the Company announced the proposed acquisition of Dun & Bradstreet by an investor group led by CC Capital, Cannae Holdings and funds affiliated with Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. On August 8, 2018, Dun & Bradstreet's Board of Directors (the "Board") caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which Dun & Bradstreet’s stockholders will receive $145 in cash for each share of Dun & Bradstreet common stock they hold (the “Merger Consideration”). The Complaint alleges that on September 12, 2018, in order to convince Dun & Bradstreet shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A (the “Proxy”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

COMPANY INFORMATION:

Sector: Services
Industry: Business Services
Headquarters: United States

SECURITIES INFORMATION:

Ticker Symbol: DNB
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: D. Delaware
DOCKET #: 18-CV-01455
JUDGE: Hon. Colm F. Connolly
DATE FILED: 09/19/2018
CLASS PERIOD START: 07/26/2018
CLASS PERIOD END: 09/19/2018
PLAINTIFF FIRMS NAMED IN COMPLAINT:
  1. Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (Wilmington)
    20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP (Wilmington), DE 19807
    (302) 482-3182 (302) 482-3612 ·
No Document Title Filing Date